Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 4 July.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER) Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 4 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Ferry Services

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission about the implementation of the 1992 European regulations on maritime transport (Council Regulation 3577/92); and if he will make a statement. [126336]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I recently met representatives of the European Commission to discuss a range of issues relating to transport, including ferry services.

Mrs. Michie: Can the Minister throw any light on why the tendering of Caledonian MacBrayne ferry routes has come up under these regulations? Why is the Commission suddenly interested? Does the Minister know who alerted the Commission? The regulations have been in place since 1992 and it appears that, when exemptions and derogations were being negotiated by France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there was no mention of Scotland. That makes me assume that the previous Conservative Government did not send a Scottish Minister to the negotiations. I know that the Minister is concerned that we hold together the Caledonian MacBrayne services because they give a lifeline to our islands.

Mr. Wilson: I am, indeed, very concerned, as the hon. Lady fairly points out. I am certainly of the view that the best interests of the taxpayer and of the public are served by an integrated ferry operation on the west coast of

Scotland, with all the flexibility and economies of scale that offers—an operation that is committed to public service and has no other reason for existence.
I cannot answer as to why the European Commission has recently escalated its interest; I can only point out to the hon. Lady that matters relating to safeguarding the services and consulting on how tendering should take place are now devolved. Certainly, everyone who supports CalMac and agrees that the company is the best answer right along the west coast should be making that case heard and well known—not least in Brussels.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have doubled the operating subsidy to Caledonian MacBrayne? Does he agree that allowing CalMac to bid for the routes to the northern isles would give the strongest possible vote of confidence to CalMac staying in the public sector?

Mr. Wilson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. He was, of course, a Transport Minister in the Scottish Office before devolution, when most of the increase occurred. We put a load of extra money into Caledonian MacBrayne. That is a vote of confidence. In Opposition, we long demanded for CalMac the right to bid for other routes; I am delighted that, in government, we have delivered it.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the regulations on the volume of trade and on port state control in the European Union?

Mr. Wilson: I have made no such calculations, but I shall be delighted to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — Assisted Areas Map

Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on the exclusion of Inverness, East, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey from the assisted areas map. [126337]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Following the publication of the proposed assisted areas map on 10 April, I received representations from my hon. Friend and others on the exclusion of the area. Revised proposals have now been submitted to the European Commission.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will be well aware of the rundown of the Barmac fabrication yards, with the loss of more than 3,000 jobs that are highly skilled and well valued in the highland economy. Does he share my view that that strengthens the case for my constituency remaining within the assisted areas map, as indeed it does under the highlands and islands special transitional programme? Will he undertake to visit my constituency to add his weight to the campaign?

Dr. Reid: I am, of course, aware of the effects of the developments at Barmac; we all take them very seriously. I recognise the general strength of the arguments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend about parts of his


constituency. I assure him that, during the consultation process, we listened carefully to the views expressed on the matter. As he will be aware, the final decision is for the European Commission, but he will not be entirely disappointed with the outcome of our reception of his representations nor, hopefully, with the outcome of the review itself.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Does the Secretary of State recognise that, by no criteria, are the interests and needs of Inverness to be compared with those of the fragile areas on the periphery of the highlands? Those areas are sparsely populated and have long lines of communication. Does he agree that, although a case can be made for Inverness, related to Barmac, it would be no triumph for highland development if moneys for assistance simply drained into the centre on the ground that what is good for Inverness is good for the highlands because it is of pan-highland benefit?

Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent and important point. The question by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) referred not only to Inverness, but to Badenoch and Strathspey. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals published on 10 April gave the highlands and islands more than 70 per cent. coverage. We also need to remember that they will still benefit from the special transitional programme, which is valued at 308 million ecu—that is £192.5 million for those Conservative Members who do not like to deal with anything in European terms—and which will run for the period from 2000 to 2006.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Does the Secretary of State accept that the impact of the job losses at Barmac has repercussions in many areas of the highlands and islands? Although we welcome, for example, the development of Cap Gemini at Forres, does he recognise that the enterprise areas of Inverness and Nairn and of Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey would welcome assisted area status? That would help them in their attempts to attract a variety of jobs into the area to ensure that we can absorb the redundancies that have taken place. Otherwise, we shall lose people from the area.

Dr. Reid: Yes. I have already said that I appreciate the effect of what has happened at Barmac. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who is on the Scottish Executive, will meet Barmac in the very near future—tomorrow, I think. I have already referred to the highlands and I recognise the strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, which applied to some extent to the area around Strathspey and Badenoch. I hope that that shows that we have listened to the representations that have been put forward.
I should stress that the European Commission has the final say. The hon. Lady will be aware that our first proposals were targeted in such a way as to get the maximum effect throughout Scotland. Those proposals were not acceptable to the European Commission, so we are going back with a new set of proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — Special Advisers

Mr. Graham Brady: How many special advisers he has appointed; and what their official duties are. [126338]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have two special advisers and one unpaid special adviser. They advise on the development of Government policy and its effective presentation.

Mr. Brady: When it took the Secretary of State a little while to respond, I thought that that might have been because he was trying to think of something for his advisers to do so that he could answer my question. Given that his Department is no longer a policy-making Department, what possible purpose could there be to his having three special advisers to advise him on policy?

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that my Department contributes towards the decision-making process in Cabinet Committees. We have the not unimportant job of helping to transform the governance of the United Kingdom by establishing a relationship between the two Parliaments. If we were to judge expenses and what is paid out only on the basis of what decisions are made, it would be astonishing to find out that the Short money that goes to the Conservative party has been tripled to more than £3 million to allow it to increase its policy and presentational staffs. The House may think that that money has not been well spent, and to spend that sort of money on a group of politicians who decide nothing, influence nothing and contribute nothing raises a far bigger question than the one about my special advisers.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): The Secretary of State will be aware that his departmental budget has gone up by 7 per cent. more than inflation in the past year and that it now stands at about £14 million. He has mentioned his special advisers, but he has not specified whether they advise him or people who are unable to answer parliamentary questions. Is not the number of the Secretary of State's special advisers disproportionate to what his Department does, given the fact that all his Executive functions have been given away?

Dr. Reid: We have given the Conservative party an extra £3 million for researchers, and it cannot even add up. My Department's budget is nothing like £14 million. The budget, as the hon. Gentleman is probably being advised by his unpaid adviser, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), is about £5.8 million. That is to be compared with the budget which we are involved in negotiating with the Scottish Executive of between £16,000 million and £17,000 million.
I have two advisers and the Government have 79. We are told by the Opposition that these advisers will swamp 460,000 civil servants. Our advisers amount to 0.0001 per cent. of the entire civil service. I think that the hon. Gentleman can sleep easy in his bed at night.

Mr. Grieve: The Secretary of State's reply is entirely unsatisfactory. He has still not explained what he uses his special advisers for. His comments about Short money are peculiarly specious. Is it not the reality that his


Department has turned into the first propaganda ministry that the Government have yet put together? The only purpose of his Department is to put out knocking copy against its opponents and beef up Labour Back-Bench Members when their morale slumps.

Dr. Reid: This is all very churlish. First, my Department does not put out any party political propaganda, any more than any other civil servants under any Government put out such propaganda, as the hon. Gentleman will know.
Secondly, in the context of the presentation and development of Government policy,
We believe that special advisers have a valuable role to play, precisely because they are free to act and advise in a way that a politically impartial civil service cannot.
Those are the words used by Lord Neill in his report, when he considered these matters. To say that there is no role for special advisers or that 0.0001 per cent. of the civil service will dominate the rest of it is surely, even for the present Conservative party, raising nothing other than political propaganda.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish Executive concerning the current economic environment for businesses in Scotland. [126339]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss a wide range of matters.

Mr. Morgan: Specifically in relation to the effect of the climate change levy on small businesses, the Government have set aside about £150 million to assist such firms. What specific steps has the Minister taken in Scotland to ensure that the take-up among small firms is a fair one and that such firms are aware of the existence of this money?

Mr. Wilson: It is clear from the wide range of correspondence that the climate change levy has engendered that there is a high level of awareness of it within business. I would welcome any suggestions from the hon. Gentleman or from any other quarter of what we could do more specifically in Scotland to ensure that awareness is heightened.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): I give a warm welcome to the Glasgow employment zone, which the Minister launched recently. How will the initiative benefit both business and employment in Glasgow?

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The Glasgow employment zone is important. It is one of a few zones that have been designated throughout the United Kingdom that contain an increased battery of measures, greater flexibility and additional resources. They are designed to try to crack the tough core of long-term employment. The scheme fully involves employers, who have backed it enthusiastically. It is much

in the spirit of the new deal, where the maximum resources are provided and the maximum personal needs of the individual are met, to get them back into the labour market. The more that people know about what is available within the employment zone, the better. I pay tribute to the work that the Employment Service and others have done in putting it together.

Sir Robert Smith: In his
discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the Secretary of State making sure that the concerns that I heard at the royal highland show from both farmers and those in the food processing industry about the delay in getting into the euro and preparing for it are being fully reflected, together with the Scottish economy's dependence on agriculture and on trade with Europe?
Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the Chancellor is fully aware that the issue is not only a relationship with the euro, and that he should ignore the calls from the Conservative party to pay no heed to the relationship with the dollar? Dollar investment in the oil industry is crucial not only to the economy of the north-east of Scotland, but to the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wilson: I am pleased to hear a Liberal Democrat acknowledge the dollar's importance—that is a major statement. The Government are committed to Britain entering the euro; we have set five tests and when they are met, we shall put the issue to the British people. That is the proper way in which to proceed. There is a world of difference between us and the Tories: we recognise the importance of the euro to Britain and vice versa. However, the timing and the conditions must be right—we shall not compromise on that.

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): When making representations to Brussels about adjustments to the assisted area map, will my hon. Friend take into account that the settlement previously offered for Clackmannanshire, which is part of my Ochil seat, contained an error tantamount to a slip of the pen, whereby the Sauchie-Carsebridge area was denied access to financial support, which could have serious implications for attracting new employment to the area? Will he ensure that that matter is drawn to the attention of Commission officials?

Mr. Wilson: We have done everything possible to secure the most effective conceivable result for Scotland on the basis of the population allocation and the rules set by the European Union. It simply is not possible to go around Scotland, the UK or any other EU member state cherry-picking every area that has investment potential or unemployment black spots; there has to be contiguity between the selected areas and their populations. Because of that difficulty, our original map was not accepted by Brussels. We have done our best to get the optimum result for Clackmannanshire and every other part of Scotland. I am afraid that that is the only reassurance I can give my hon. Friend.

Sir Patrick Cormack: How many times in the past six months has the Secretary of State met the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When he goes to such meetings, does he take with him the First Minister—to whom we all send warm good wishes for a


proper recovery—and, if so, who argues for what? What particular things does the Secretary of State argue for that the First Minister cannot argue for?

Mr. Wilson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that meetings take place bilaterally, unilaterally, multilaterally, and every other way, so he can rest easy that there is a sufficiency of meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The purpose of our meetings with the Chancellor and other ministerial colleagues is to ensure the best possible deal for Scotland—especially in those matters that account for 50 per cent. of all public expenditure in Scotland and are still funded from Whitehall Departments—and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament and Executive are properly funded for the other 50 per cent. of public expenditure in Scotland. In other words, our lives are committed to getting Scotland the best possible deal under a Labour Government.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent order for 22 Mega-3 rail freight wagons for Rosyth dockyard is an example of the Government's economic policies and defence diversification policies securing jobs in an area that was devastated by the previous Government? Does he also agree that the greatest risk to the economic regeneration of Rosyth and other parts of Scotland would be the return of a Tory Government and a Scottish National party-style divorce?

Mr. Wilson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the assiduous interest she has taken in this matter, which has yielded excellent results for her constituents, and for her general work in making Rosyth's future look brighter than it did a few years ago under the previous Administration. I can assure her that every job in Scotland is fought for: we fight to defend jobs and to create them. That the unemployment rate is now less than 5 per cent. for the first time since the mid-1970s provides a pretty reasonable testimony to our efforts.

Oral Answers to Questions — NHS Policy Co-ordination

Mr. Ian Bruce: What role he is playing in co-ordinating NHS policies between the NHS in England and the NHS in Scotland. [126340]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I am a member of the joint ministerial committee on health, which enables best practice to be shared across the United Kingdom. I also ensure that there is effective liaison between UK Departments and the Scottish Executive.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. May I bring a particular case to his attention? I had discussions with the agency in the NHS in England that is trying to achieve consistency in information technology and standards across the board, so that patients' records can be transferred between general practitioners and hospitals. The problem is that the NHS in Scotland is doing its own thing. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that and into the auditing of doctors and nurses, to make sure that the medical services in

England and Scotland have access to each other's records, and that we do not have three separate services in Wales, England and Scotland?

Dr. Reid: The whole purpose of devolution is to allow more sensitivity and more efficient government in local areas. There are common purposes and objectives before the British Government and the Scottish Executive, and it is important that we come together to co-ordinate areas in which we gain strength from unity of purpose and practice, through the joint ministerial committee chaired by the Prime Minister. I do not know about the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, which will be the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but we have an extremely able and effective Scottish Health Minister in Susan Deacon. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me on the matter, I will raise it with the Scottish Health Minister, and I am sure that she will give it her attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Human Rights

Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun): If she has been consulted about the proposal to set up a commission for human rights in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [126361]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice announced on 7 June that the Scottish Executive would publish a consultation paper in the autumn and that, following the consultation, a decision would be reached in due course, possibly next year. I will consider in due course whether to make formal representations in the consultation process.

Mr. Browne: The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom may in the long term be the most significant and radical constitutional change that the Government have made. In the short term, however, the Scottish experience shows that although there have been a number of very important cases, a plethora of ill-founded and spurious cases has been taken before the courts on the basis of the convention. Does not that suggest that we should await the incorporation of the convention in October and let it settle down, before putting in place the institutions that we need to enforce it?

The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Decisions about such sensitive matters should not be taken in haste. The consultation that the Scottish Executive is carrying out will no doubt have time to consider alternative models for scrutiny and enforcement of convention rights, taking into account, for example, existing constitutional arrangements, statutory bodies and the best use of limited financial resources.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: But may we take it that the Advocate-General will press hard for the establishment of a commission to deal with human rights matters in Scotland, and in particular to ensure that that


commission extends to political parties? How else are we to ensure that the treasurer of the Scottish National party is not the subject of a motion of no confidence moved in his absence?

The Advocate-General: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will press on behalf of his party for whatever policy he considers most appropriate. For my part, I will wait until I see the consultation paper, then I will make representations, if appropriate, taking into account the United Kingdom position.

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent advice she has given on the implications of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law on the number of cases brought before (a) the High Court and (b) the Court of Session; and if she will make a statement. [126362]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The incorporation of convention rights into Scots law following devolution has resulted so far in about 700 devolution issues being raised under the Scotland Act 1998. To date, the vast majority have arisen in the context of criminal trials.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that answer. Has she given advice concerning the number of cases and the extra number of sittings that will be required? In England, it is estimated that the number of judicial review applications alone will double to 2,800, and that the number of sitting days in the High Court and Court of Appeal will lead to an annual increase in costs of £60 million. Has the hon. and learned Lady made a similar assessment of the costs in Scotland? How will she find the money to cover the additional costs?

The Advocate-General: The hon. Lady will remember that my role is to advise the UK Government. Obviously, the Scottish Executive have their own officers to advise them about such matters. I have certainly kept UK Government Departments well informed about the types and numbers of cases and some of the implications of experience in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Judicial Training

Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): What plans he has for further in-service training on sentencing for judges. [126365]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. All circuit judges and recorders receive in-service training from the board at three-yearly intervals and locally based training

each year. All these seminars include sessions on sentencing. Specialist courses are also held for judges who try cases involving fraud or serious sexual offences.

Mr. Davies: Given the profound and far-reaching impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, what plans has my hon. Friend for training judges in the pending implementation of the Act in October?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is an important issue. The Judicial Studies Board has organised a programme of 54 one-day seminars on the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights for all full-time and part-time judges in England and Wales. The programme will have been completed by the end of July, well in time before incorporation takes effect in October. Thereafter, human rights issues will be incorporated into the board's core training for judges and form part of their core training from then on.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Will this in-service training incorporate the more senior members of the judiciary? Following the embarrassment of Lord Hoffmann over the collapse of the original Pinochet case because of his involvement with a charity, followed by the further embarrassment of the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend last week on another charitable matter, is it any wonder that many people are asking in relation to so many of the current Government's friends in another place "Who do these people think they are?"

Mr. Lock: It is disgraceful for hon. Members to impugn the independence of the judiciary and to cast aspersions on the very good work that its members do. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that the rules on disclosure of interests have anything to do with the European convention on human rights. The hon. Gentleman's attempted link is entirely spurious.

Oral Answers to Questions — Magistrates

Mr. Phil Sawford (Kettering): What steps she is taking to encourage greater openness and transparency in the appointment of magistrates. [126366]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The process is open and transparent. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor revised the directions to which his local advisory committees work in 1998, in order to establish a national unified system for recruiting magistrates. A copy of the directions is in the Library. The local committees actively seek to encourage applications from all parts of the community by using a range of methods, including advertisements in local newspapers, leaflet drops and local radio and television programmes.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome all the efforts that are being made to encourage greater openness and transparency, but I fear that in all too many cases there is still a shroud of secrecy over the appointment process through the advisory committees. Will my hon. Friend consider more steps to encourage


greater openness, not only in that appointments process, but in the manner in which the advisory committees are appointed in the first place?

Jane Kennedy: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I repeat that we believe that the process is open and transparent. That is not to say that my noble Friend does not make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the communities from which they are drawn. It might be helpful to the House and to my hon. Friend to know that the Northamptonshire advisory committee, which covers the area of my hon. Friend's constituency, has recently undertaken a number of activities to encourage recruitment and raise the profile of the magistracy. While my hon. Friend raises fair concerns and makes legitimate comments, we make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the community.

Mr. James Gray: We of course welcome as broad a variety of people as possible on the bench, but does the Minister agree that it is important for the best calibre of people to become magistrates, and that the sort of tokenism she described is wrong? We should not appoint people because they are women or because they are black. We must have the best calibre of people, irrespective of who they are.

Jane Kennedy: I find some comments that are made from time to time about the lay magistracy disappointing. The Lord Chancellor defined the personal qualities that an individual must possess to be suitable for appointment as a magistrate as: good character, understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity and sound temperament, sound judgment, commitment and reliability. Candidates for the bench are drawn from people who have all those qualities. However, it is fair to say that every effort should continue to be made to find more candidates who are women, and more candidates from ethnic communities, to be sure that the benches reflect the communities that they are there to serve.

Oral Answers to Questions — Judicial Appointments

Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): If he will make a statement on revisions proposed by the Lord Chancellor to the system for judicial appointments. [126368]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Lord Chancellor keeps judicial appointments procedures continuously under review. Last year, he asked Sir Leonard Peach to conduct a scrutiny of the procedures, and he is now acting on Sir Leonard's recommendations.

Tony Wright: How embarrassed is my hon. Friend by the report that was recently published? It was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department and shows that most lawyers would like an independent appointments commission. We know that the Lord Chancellor likes appointing judges—that is reasonable; it is an agreeable occupation—but everybody else, probably including my hon. Friend, believes that an independent

commission should do it. Instead of endlessly peachifying the system to preserve it, why do we not simply get on with the job of changing it?

Mr. Lock: I assure my hon. Friend, who remains my hon. Friend, that I am not embarrassed at all. He has misunderstood the point. Press reports were about research into the factors that affect decisions to apply for judicial appointments and silk. The reports were unbalanced because they revealed respondents' perceptions of the system, but did not analyse the extent to which the system worked, or the factors that worked within the system. There is a difference between how the system is perceived from outside—I accept that it is important for the Government to know that—and its perception inside, which is the subject of the detailed report by Sir Leonard Peach. That will lead to the appointment of a commissioner for judicial appointments for England and Wales later this year. The two perceptions are entirely separate.

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Does the Minister accept that, now that judges must interpret the European convention on human rights, they increasingly have to make political decisions about political policies, which were previously made by elected politicians in this place, and to seek a political balance between different rights? In those circumstances, does the Minister acknowledge that the judiciary is in danger of being politicised, that the selection of judges will be considered from a political point of view, and that in most other countries, such as the United States, those appointments become political as the result of such deplorable moves?

Mr. Lock: I am very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman believes that giving rights to the British public is a deplorable move. Our judges' decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 when the European convention comes into force will be no more political than they were when there were judicial reviews of the previous Government's decisions, for example, in the Pergau dam case. It is important that judges judge according to the law and that their appointment and work be entirely impartial.

Oral Answers to Questions — Magistrates

Angela Smith (Basildon): What recent evaluation she has made of the social class of magistrates. [126370]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Each local advisory committee tries to ensure that the bench reflects the political affiliation and occupational diversity of the local area. Those conditions are currently used as a proxy for social balance, although a viable alternative is being sought. Returns are made to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor every year in respect of each bench.

Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and her recognition that we need people from all backgrounds to give the magistracy legitimacy. However, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important factors that deters people from applying is the inability to get time off work? Many people in professions or managerial positions can get time off work, but those in manual work or lower down in their place of work cannot


easily get time off. That is a major hindrance to applying. Will my hon. Friend consider that matter and meet some of the larger employers to discuss it?

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, as she regularly does, and for the opportunity to address it once more. We recognise the voluntary nature of magistrates' work and appreciate the commitment that they give to the service. We are committed to the concept of voluntary service but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, without the co-operation of employers, we cannot achieve the balance on the benches which, we all know, benefits everybody.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the hon. Lady confirm that quotas, targets and the pursuit of an antediluvian class war should have no role whatsoever to play in the appointment of magistrates, and that the only criterion for such appointments should be merit?

Jane Kennedy: As I have already said, these days, the use of political balance to introduce proper social balance on benches is regarded as a stereotype that no longer holds true. If we look at the results of the 1997 election, we also have to look seriously at other criteria and we are seeking to do that. Unnecessarily dismissive comments about the need to ensure balance on the benches do not give credit to the work of magistrates, who deliver an excellent service throughout the country and deal with 97 per cent. of criminal cases in their courts.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Why not start writing the manifesto for the next election? Why not be ultra-modern and democratic and elect magistrates and judges?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend, as ever, comes up with a novel solution, which I shall consider carefully. However, we have procedures in place that will address some of the problems that he raises.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): In the light of experience in Scotland following the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, are the Government satisfied that it is still appropriate for political appointments of judges to be made in England?

Jane Kennedy: We are dealing with the appointments of magistrates, which are made after local advisory committees undertake an assessment of candidates and make recommendations to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Oral Answers to Questions — Salaried Defence Service

Mr. David Borrow: What progress the Government are making towards setting up a scheme for a salaried defence service. [126371]

Mr. Lock: The Government and the Legal Services Commission intend to establish the criminal defence service on 1 April 2001. On 13 June this year, we published consultation papers on establishing a salaried

defence service within the criminal defence service and on its clients' choice of representative. Responses are due by 22 September this year.

Mr. Borrow: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the progress that has been made in instigating a salaried defence service. What plans does my hon. Friend have to monitor the operation of the defence service once it is up and running, thus ensuring that the good idea that lies behind it is carried out in practice?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are likely to be only six pilot salaried defence services out of a total of about 3,500 firms of solicitors in the criminal defence service, so we must keep the matter in context. The salaried defence service will be an independent stand-alone service within the Legal Services Commission, and there will be a research project following the establishment of the pilots to check that we can learn the lessons and ensure that we get the right quality and value for money from services provided by lawyers employed on salaries.

Mr. John Burnett: During the progress of the Access to Justice Act 1999, we opposed the introduction of state defenders. How do the Government propose to overcome the inherent conflicts of interest that occur when the state acts both as prosecutor and defender?

Mr. Lock: That conflict arises in every case in which state funds are used both to prosecute and defend. Whether the lawyer is a salaried lawyer or receives a fee for the case, the paymaster remains the same. Independence is a matter of professional standards, attitude of mind and an impartial approach to the job that the defender has to do. It is not a question of whether the lawyer receives a fee or a salary cheque.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): We are still waiting for costing of the service: perhaps the Minister would share that information with us.
May I caution the Minister about the salaried defender scheme, which operates in many American states, such as Texas, and often results in a second-rate service for defendants? Mr. Gary Graham, who was executed last week, was provided with such a salaried defender by the state. He was convicted after a two-day trial on the evidence of just one witness, and many doubts were raised about whether his defence was satisfactory. In fact, it was utterly inept. May I therefore caution the Minister and ask him to insist that defendants get a first-rate defence service?

Mr. Lock: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but poor quality defence services exist in many parts of the world and their quality is totally independent of whether they are salaried or paid by a fee per case. The issue is whether there is proper remuneration for lawyers and proper quality systems. We will monitor the quality of services under the pilots, but we will not accept any special pleading on behalf of existing private practice solicitors or barristers which would prevent us from finding out what benefits can be obtained from a mixed system.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Modernisation Committee

Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): What plans the Government have to present proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on making parliamentary adjournments coincide with school holidays. [126380]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business managers already take school holidays into account when arranging adjournments. Unfortunately, there is at present no common and consistent pattern of school holidays.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend consider proposals to bring forward the summer recess, which is very long, so that, in nearly every case, it would embrace the full school summer holiday? Furthermore, the October half-term holiday could then coincide with a recess. That would entail changing the timetable of party conferences, but I am sure that that could be easily accommodated.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, as I am sure the whole House does. I have noticed, over the years, an increasing interest in having a different and more certain pattern for the parliamentary calendar, and I understand those pressures. I have to warn my hon. Friend that although he says that it would be comparatively easy to change the timetable of the party conferences, most are arranged a good number of years in advance, so I fear that it might not be as simple as he thinks.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the President of the Council confirm that the Modernisation Committee is seeking to obtain greater certainty for the parliamentary year, which would obviously help the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)? Will the right hon. Lady also comment on the spate of leaks over the past few days not only on this subject but on others before the Committee? Can she confirm that it is her intention, and that of the Committee, to publish a report before the summer recess?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the sensitivity about matters being publicised which are under consideration by the Select Committee, although the Committee is in a slightly unusual position, in that its discussions affect the House as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that the Committee, as its earlier published reports show, is seeking and has consistently sought to obtain greater certainty. It is mindful of the fact that some Parliaments, albeit ones with traditions and responsibilities different from ours, have a fixed calendar. I hope that I will not be thought to be contravening the convention that governs the work of Select Committees if I say that it is certainly my strong hope that the Committee will publish a report, which I hope hon. Members will agree with, before the summer recess.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What would the Minister think of a school that published its intended terms and

said, "But if we haven't finished the A-level syllabus by 29 July, we will go on to 3 August"? That is, to some degree, the way in which we operate in this place. Could the Minister and her Committee put a very high priority on future certainty? I am not arguing for particular times; I am arguing for knowing where I will be on what day next year.

Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend and I know that greater certainty would especially assist the staff of the House in planning their work. As to what I would think of a school that was unable to give greater certainty, I might wonder whether it was full of rather unruly pupils.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Has the right hon. Lady received any request from the hon. Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) or for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), or from any other hon. Member who believes that parliamentary adjournments should coincide with school holidays, that the House should sit for as many weeks a year as schools work?

Mrs. Beckett: Indeed I have received such representations, and I am grateful to learn that the hon. Gentleman would be in favour of that suggestion.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Would my right hon. Friend like to tell me exactly which half of her legislative programme she is thinking of abandoning to make it easier for us to have longer holidays?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I do not propose to abandon any of the legislative programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — House Sittings

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What proposals she has for changes to the times when the House sits. [126381]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee is to review the experiment with Thursday sittings later this Session and other parts of its work may have some impact on sitting hours, but I have no other proposals for change at present.

Mr. Swayne: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that, with the current pace of European integration and our giving away so many of our powers to other European institutions, we might avoid the inconvenience of having to sit at all?

Mr. Tipping: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will note that there are lengthy debates whenever European matters are discussed, such are the divisions in his own party.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Does my hon. Friend think that a considerable change in the hours of the House could be made if, instead of having Divisions after half-past 10 at night, we were to roll them over to the


following day? Would not those Opposition Members who make us sit ridiculous hours then soon lose their interest in democracy and debate?

Mr. Tipping: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I simply say that there was a Division last Wednesday at 1.12 in the morning. My hon. Friend was there, together with 177 other Labour Members of Parliament, but only 18 Conservatives.

Sir George Young: Following the helpful question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), can the Minister give an assurance that he will not support any proposal to reduce the sittings of the House that would compromise its duty to scrutinise Government legislation?

Mr. Tipping: That is a strong point, and part of the responsibility lies with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Some Opposition Members believe that scrutiny should occur in the other place; the real and effective place for scrutiny is in this House.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Visitors

Angela Smith (Basildon): If the Commission will make additional facilities available to visitors to the House for the current year. [126382]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Additional attractions and facilities for visitors this year include the reopening of the Line of Route, on a trial basis, for pre-booked guided tours on Mondays to Saturdays from 7 August to 16 September, as well as free admission to the "Voters of the Future" exhibition in Westminster Hall during the same period. A souvenir shop offering merchandise from both Houses and temporary lavatories are also being provided. In 2001, work should begin on establishing the new Westminster Hall visitors centre.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he not aware that it is difficult for visitors to the House of Commons to go to the toilet or even get a cup of tea? I welcome the fact that the tours were advertised in the national press this weekend and this week, but will not visitors be disappointed with the facilities that we provide for them? Cannot we do better than temporary toilets?

Mr. Kirkwood: The point is well made. The Commission is well aware of the inadequacy of the current facilities, and they will change next year when the Westminster Hall cafeteria and visitors centre are properly developed. There may be difficulties, but the House took the view that the new trial basis of taking tours on the Line of Route and into Westminster Hall, giving people access to the "Voters of the Future" exhibition, which is part of the "String of Pearls" millennium festival across

London, was the sensible thing to do. Later in the year, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will use Westminster Hall, immediately after the exhibition ends.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): May I suggest that one of the aspects that is a disgrace in the House is that the only place we can meet our constituents is either in a corridor or at a table outside a Committee Room? There should be proper facilities in this place where one can have a confidential meeting with one's constituents. I hope that the House of Commons Commission will be able to consider that.

Mr. Kirkwood: Strictly speaking, any new facilities with a catering or refreshment aspect are technically the responsibility of the Catering Committee, so I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). However, when Portcullis house comes on stream, Members will see a noticeable difference. They will be able to take people into some parts of Portcullis house. When the new Westminster Hall visitors centre opens—I hope as soon as possible after the work starts in 2001—I think that Members and visitors will be better provided for.

The President of the Council was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — "Shifting the Balance"

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the first report from the Liaison Committee, "Shifting the Balance" (HC300); and if she will make a statement. [126383]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): A number of Members have made informal representations to me, or raised the issue at Question Time. The Government response to the report was published on 18 May.

Miss McIntosh: Will the President of the Council and Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the issues raised in the report, which concern many of us who are members of important Select Committees such as that led by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody): the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs? Will it be possible to have such a debate before the end of term, so that we can consider a structure alternative to the present one and give the Select Committees the real teeth that many of us believe they should have?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course that is a matter that should be discussed by the House. The hon. Lady may know that the Liaison Committee has invited me to give evidence to it, which I am very prepared to do. I had assumed that the Committee would prefer its debate to take place after that date. I cannot undertake to be confident of finding time


before the summer recess—if that is what she means—but I anticipate and hope that the matter will be discussed before the current Session ends.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): rose—

Hon. Member: s: Hear, hear!

Mrs. Dunwoody: As if I do not have enough trouble.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the report is the distillation of a lot of experience of all the Select Committee Chairmen. It is a serious report; I know that she accepts that. I hope that the House will have the chance to look at it because, if we are looking at modernisation, that is the way to go. We can produce some real scrutiny of legislation. It is something that should be supported by every Member.

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that the report is weighty and has considerable implications for every Member. I also share her view that it should therefore be taken seriously by the House. I hope that that will happen in and before the debate to which she refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — Modernisation

Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): If she will make a statement on her future proposals for the modernisation of the House. [126384]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is examining some further proposals whose consideration flows directly from recommendations and experiments resulting from our earlier reports.

Tony Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that two important questions to

ask about the modernising programme are: has it strengthened Parliament in relation to the Executive; and has it done something to sort out the ludicrous hours when the House is expected to transact business? Has not progress on both those issues been disappointingly meagre so far; and will not the extent to which the current Parliament comes to be seen as a modernising Parliament be decided by the actions that the Government and the House take over the period ahead?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that, sadly, my hon. Friend was not able to be with us when we discussed the two principal experiments that have flowed from earlier reports of the Select Committee—the experiments with regard to hours and, to some extent, with regard to greater scrutiny. I am referring to the changed sitting hours with which we are experimenting on Thursdays and to the setting up of the parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall, which has provided 200 extra opportunities to scrutinise the Executive, including examination of Select Committee reports. I am sorry to hear him say that he thinks that that is meagre. It is, after all, more than most Governments have ever done.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): In answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), the right hon. Lady said that she had received a number of representations from her hon. Friends that we should adopt holidays similar to those of schools. I wonder whether any of those representations also concerned hours and suggested that perhaps we should only sit from 9 am till 3.30 pm.

Mrs. Beckett: I have received no representations suggesting those hours. However, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the notion that all representations about the pattern of holidays and whether they should reflect school holidays come from this side of the House. They come from Opposition Members too.

Oral Answers to Questions — Vaccine Damage Payments

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission Madam Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on benefits payable under the vaccine damage payment scheme.
The Vaccine Damage Payment Act was introduced by the last Labour Government in 1979 in response to the Pearson commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury.
The purpose of the vaccine damage payment scheme is to provide a single tax-free payment for people who, on the balance of probabilities, have suffered severe mental or physical disablement of 80 per cent. or more as a result of vaccination against specified diseases.
The scheme aims to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage and their families. It is designed to recognise the extra costs falling on the families concerned.
Under the scheme, claims have to be made within six years of the date of vaccination or of a child reaching two years of age, whichever is later. Payment was initially made at a rate of £10,000. It was subsequently raised to £20,000 in 1985 and to £30,000 in 1991. In 1998, the present Government decided to raise it further to £40,000 for claims made on or after 1 July of that year. Also in 1998, my right hon. Friend Baroness Hollis announced in another place that a review of the scheme would be undertaken. Today I am announcing the outcome of that review.
First, I have decided that the six-year limit for making claims is too short in respect of young children, who account for the vast majority of claims. I propose to change this limit in line with Law Commission proposals which would have the effect of enabling claims to be made at any time up to age 21.
Secondly, I have decided that the disability threshold, which at present is 80 per cent. is too high. I therefore propose to reduce it to 60 per cent. The changes both to the time limit and to the threshold require primary legislation. We shall legislate at the earliest available opportunity. I have also reviewed how vaccine damage victims should be supported through the social security system.
People disabled from an early age at present qualify for severe disablement allowance. This will, of course, include recipients of vaccine damage payments. From next April, as a result of measures introduced in last year's Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, younger disabled people will be able to claim incapacity benefit without having to satisfy the normal national insurance contribution conditions. That will mean that they will be able to claim up to an extra £26.70 a week.
People with severe mobility difficulties or care needs also qualify for disability living allowance. From next year the Government have also extended help to disabled three and four-year-olds with higher-rate mobility needs. That will again include young children receiving vaccine damage payments. They will be able to claim £37 a week.
I have also considered the lump sum which is payable under the scheme. The Government recognise that caring for people who have suffered damage puts a considerable

burden on their families and carers. In 1998, the Government raised the sum from £30,000 to £40,000. That sum is too low, so I propose that the sum payable to each individual should be raised to £100,000 for all new cases.
However, we must also recognise the situation of families who received lump-sum payments in the past who have not benefited from any of the previous increases. So I can announce that those who have already received lump sums will get top-up payments so that they are put on an equal footing in real terms with new claimants. These payments for the 900 existing recipients will range from £58,000 to £67,000. We will introduce regulations to make these payments as soon as possible. The cost of my proposals is around £60 million.
Nothing can make up for what has happened to these children, but we have a clear duty to support them and their families. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the changes.

Mr. David Willetts (Havant): Hon. Members on both sides of the House do, indeed, welcome the changes, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) who has led the all-party campaign on the issue. I also pay tribute to Olivia Price, the chairman of the Vaccine Victims Support Group, who is coming tomorrow to lobby Parliament on the issue, for the fourth time since 1997. The Opposition welcome the statement and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has already made clear, we recognise the need for a generous and sensible settlement for the grievance.
I have one question for the Secretary of State about his proposals. We have read that he has been involved in negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry about the possibility of its contributing to such a scheme, as happens in some other countries. The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of the pharmaceutical industry in his statement, and it would be interesting to know how those discussions proceeded.
The hon. Member for Eccles rightly observed in a previous debate on this subject that
good policy is not made on the hoof, but this one has been around the paddock far too many times.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1 WH.]
That is certainly true of this announcement. In December 1998, the then Minister of State said that the Government hoped
to conclude our review early in the new year.—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 817.]
That would have been early in 1999. We were told by the Minister in the Lords that an announcement would be made "as soon as possible."
Now we are told by the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] I shall remind the House of this, because it is very important. The Secretary of State now says that he will legislate at the earliest available opportunity. I make it clear to the Secretary of the State—and the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, who are in their places—that we will co-operate in legislation at the earliest available opportunity and if he tables a simple Bill to amend the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979, which is a simple Act that should not be complicated to administer, we will ensure that it has full and fair passage


through the House. The challenge to the Secretary of State, after so much delay and so many promised reviews, is whether he will legislate before the next election.

Mr. Darling: When we consider the children with whom we are dealing, I do not think that the issue should be the stuff of knockabout politics.
The hon. Gentleman asked me one question of substance, the answer to which in part explains why the results of the review have been announced today. We did approach the pharmaceutical industry to see whether it would co-operate in part-funding a trust to be set up to make payments to the children affected by vaccine damage. The response from the industry was not enthusiastic and it struck me that it would take several years to resolve the matter. I felt that, rather than wait for discussions that might take months or years, it would be better for the Government to act to improve the vaccine damage payment scheme.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the scheme. It was good of him to give it. Arguably, the children concerned have been waiting for 20 years for this statement. I believe that the Government are doing the right thing, and I hope that when we introduce legislation we will receive co-operation from Opposition Members on both Front and Back Benches.

Mr. Ian Stewart (Eccles): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today. He has a record of being able to take hard decisions, but when we spoke to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently, I pointed out to them that the hardest decision in the whole matter was the decision that the parents had to take when they chose to have a child born without impairment vaccinated. The first thing that we must say is that the vaccine programme has been a great success. It has reduced the number of cases from several thousand in 1979 to a handful a year now. We must say loudly and clearly to the public that the vaccine programme works—

Madam Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has done a great deal in this campaign, but I must remind him that he is not speaking in an Adjournment debate at the moment; he is putting questions. There are other Members who want to ask questions, so I hope that he will put his question right away.

Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Will the Secretary of State join me in acknowledging that his statement today will be welcomed by the parents groups and the families? This is not just about the individual who has been damaged; it is a whole-family issue. The proposals go a long way towards providing the immediate help that those families need. Will my right hon. Friend join me in telling the families that the issue is not finished here, and that this statement is about the payment scheme only? The issue of compensation now needs to be addressed, and will be addressed by the all-party group and the parents groups.

Mr. Darling: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) for the work that he

has done in the all-party group. Anyone who says that Back-Bench Members cannot make a difference is wrong. My hon. Friend has shown, along with his colleagues in the all-party group, that Members of Parliament can play a valuable role in helping the Government to formulate policy. I am grateful to him also for acknowledging that the Government announcement today will go a long way towards helping families who have lost out in the past. I hope that all the parents concerned will accept that we have made a number of changes which I hope will make a real difference to the problems and difficulties that they face.

Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which illustrates why we worked so hard for a change of Government—although I am sorry that it has taken us a little while to get this far. I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who put the issue on the agenda a couple of weeks ago. I particularly welcome the recognition of the need for backdating some of the payments. In many instances, we are talking not about children but about grown people and their carers. The Secretary of State has recognised that there is a need for no-fault compensation in this aspect of public health policy and NHS activity. Will he now explore the possibility of introducing no-fault compensation in other areas of national health concern?

Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, nothing in what I said today makes the case for no-fault liability. That was raised by the Pearson commission in the 1970s and rejected by the then Government in 1983. Successive Governments have not changed the position so far as that is concerned. The vaccine damage payment scheme is a separate matter and is focused on a particular problem affecting a particular group of people. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken on his last point.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general welcome for the statement. The matter has been on the agenda since we came into office. We announced the review in 1998 and, last year, we announced an increase of some £27 a week in the amount of payments that go to severely disabled young people, as well as access for the most severely disabled people to disability living allowance. Today's announcement is a further step along the road to ensuring that we help people who have suffered a great deal over the years.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that this is the first time that the payments are to be backdated. Some 900 recipients will receive between £58,000 and £67,000 a year as a result of what I am proposing today.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that, no matter what is said by Opposition Members today—mealy-mouthed or otherwise—thousands of families will thank the Government for proposing changes to the


scheme and that families affected by vaccine damage can look forward to better care from the state in the future than they have received in the past?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. He is right in saying that many families have waited too long for this scheme to be put on a proper footing, but we have now done that.
Perhaps I could correct an earlier slip of the tongue, when I referred to an annual payment of between £58,000 and £67,000. I should of course have said that that amount is a lump sum.

Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon): At least two families in my constituency will very much welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today. Cases such as theirs are appalling: perhaps it is because they are so few and so random that they are so sad.
My question concerns the top-up payments. In both the cases with which I am familiar, the families received the £10,000 interim payment in 1979 for injuries that occurred in the 1970s. How will the top-up payment be calculated in relation to the period of time that has elapsed since then?
Secondly, the child in one of my constituency cases has subsequently died, but her parents spent half their lives nursing her until she was 25. What will happen in cases such as that?

Mr. Darling: I can help the hon. Gentleman on both points. First, we aim to ensure that people who have received a payment in the past will receive a top-up payment so that they get the equivalent in real terms of the £100,000 total sum that is to be paid. All the relevant provisions will be set out in regulations. The lump sum, unlike the change in the threshold or the time limit for claims, will be dealt with in regulations which I hope to bring before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
I shall deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about children who have died. Although there are not many of them, there are a few, and I need to reflect on how to deal with such cases equitably. I certainly undertake to do so.

Mr. George Stevenson: I wish to add my support for my right hon. Friend's very welcome statement. I am especially pleased that he referred to families who were affected when the scheme began in 1979. Although those families received payments, they have nevertheless felt a serious sense of injustice over the ensuing 21 years—of which this Government have been in power for only three.
My right hon. Friend has assured the House that the regulations will be introduced and the primary legislation changed at the earliest possible opportunity. May I urge him to use all his endeavours to ensure that the necessary changes are introduced without any further or undue delay?

Mr. Darling: I want to bring the regulations forward as quickly as I can, as it is important that payments—especially those involving the lump sum—are made as quickly as possible. After waiting so long for an increase

in the lump sum, most families will want to receive it as quickly as possible. That is what I intend to make sure happens.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): As a member of the all-party group, and on behalf of my constituent Hamish Thompson, may I thank the Secretary of State for what he has achieved in terms of removing the time limits, lowering the disability threshold and increasing the top-up payment? However, I have one practical request.
The Secretary of State will know that many parents will attend a lobby at the House of Commons tomorrow. They will have a lot of questions about the regulations, the primary legislation, the interaction of benefits and top-up payments. Would it be possible for an official in the Benefits Agency to be designated as the person with lead responsibility in this matter? That would mean that there would be someone for parents and hon. Members to contact and deal with. One of the frustrations for parents in this position has been that they feel that there is no particular point of reference for them to contact. That has caused confusion, and it would be very much appreciated by the families if they could get information by telephone from one person at one address.

Mr. Darling: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that I can provide by tomorrow an official who could give chapter and verse on the number of matters about which I have just informed the House. Lobby groups and parents have been in contact with the Department. Once we have the details, we intend to write to them and set out the position. That might be the best way to proceed, as hon. Members will know that trying to run what amounts to an information stall is not always a practical response to lobbies in this place.

Mr. Andy King (Rugby and Kenilworth): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the welcome announcement that he has made today. I seek clarification on two small matters.
Two young women in my constituency have now gone into residential care. How will they benefit from what my right hon. Friend has announced? I hope that they will be able to get some protection, so that their families, who cared for them so many years, will benefit. Going back to 1979, some young people affected will now be over the age of 21, but would have been 60 per cent. disabled because of vaccine damage in the intervening period. Will they be able to seek some redress?

Mr. Darling: On the latter point, I want to ensure that people are not unfairly excluded simply because they do not come within the new scheme. Clearly, the primary legislation that is required will take longer to introduce because of other constraints, but I want to avoid the situation in which someone who would qualify now is barred because of the old rules. Not many people are in that situation, but it would be unfair to exclude them.
My hon. Friend asked about people who are now in residential care. That would not affect their entitlement to the increased lump sum, as I set out in my statement.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the statement. Will the Secretary of State underline the point made by the


hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart)? While we try to help those people who have suffered for reasons that some of us cannot fully understand, we should also be sending out the message that, on the whole, vaccination is helpful and safe. We must assure people that the vaccine programme should be followed through because it has been so positive. Having said that, I plead with the Secretary of State to look again with compassion on those parents who lost children as a result of vaccine damage: they have sometimes been left without any clear guidance concerning the real problem and have been fobbed off with reasons that are not acceptable.

Mr. Darling: All of us, as Members of this House or as individuals, have come across families who have agonised over that problem, to which there is no easy answer. As I know, nothing that I can say from this Dispatch Box will provide comfort to parents in that position. On parents whose children died, as I said in my statement, nothing can make up for what has happened. As a Government, all that we can do is to ensure that we provide help as appropriate for parents who have been in that dreadful situation.
On the general point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I agree that the vaccination programme has brought great benefits to this country and to other parts of the world. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles were extremely measured and I support what he said.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In view of the frankly uncalled-for contribution from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, in contrast with the contributions of Opposition Back Benchers, I remind my right hon. Friend that David Ennals had made the undertaking—and a Labour Government would have carried it out—on the delicate question of time limits which he has honoured, which was very much open to argument. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend for generously topping up the lump sum. Will he, the Department of Health and other colleagues reflect, however, because that raises the thorny issue of medical negligence? Will he look sympathetically at the case put forward by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton on medical negligence because, in one form or another, heaven help us, these problems may well arise again and we ought to tackle that question.

Mr. Darling: The statement was not about medical negligence, which is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, not for me. On the events of 1979, I understood that the then Labour Government certainly intended to complete the reforms, but unfortunately were not able to do so. I have nothing whatever to say about the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I too offer a warm welcome to the statement from the Secretary of State. In reducing the threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. disablement, is the right hon. Gentleman considering altering some of the assessment procedures that are used? He, like all hon. Members, will know that one of the most

distressing aspects is the definition of the threshold that enables people to be recipients of the benefits. Will that be included in the legislation?

Mr. Darling: No, I cannot promise that. I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes about medical assessments. There will always be some problems with them but, as I said in my statement, I consider the tariff level of 80 per cent. to be too high for the degree of disability, so I want to reduce it to 60 per cent. We always keep procedures under review, but I cannot promise to make specific changes in respect of this particular group of people.

Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): I thank my right hon. Friend for this act of justice. Labour Members take pride in the fact that, in doing something about this matter, the Government have done what previous Governments conspicuously failed to do. May I say, especially on behalf of those 900 people who are now in their 30s, many of whom are totally dependent, for whom life is a struggle and whose families often live in great poverty, that this action is vastly overdue? It was a scandal that when they had taken part in a public health programme and received a certificate to say that damage was caused by vaccine, they were rewarded with only £10,000. That was a scandal waiting to be addressed, and I am glad that the Government have now addressed it.
May I simply ask that the top-up payments, for those 900 people in particular, come through as soon as possible?

Mr. Darling: I certainly hope that they will. Now that the announcement has been made, people rightly want to see the sums that are due to them.
On my hon. Friend's general point, I believe that the course of action that we have announced today is the right one. I am only sorry that we have had to wait so long for Parliament to have a chance to make those changes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State made and congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) most warmly on the important work that he has done, but may I suggest that the required legislation could be given greater priority if the Government were to relegate to the circular filing tray their planned legislation against hunting with dogs?

Mr. Darling: I believe that most Members on both sides of the House have recognised that this is a very difficult matter. We are dealing with children who have suffered serious damage as a result of what has happened to them, and I do not think that this is the time and place for Tory knockabout politics.

Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): I welcome the statement. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider extending the principle underlying the scheme by joining forces with the Secretary of State for Health to re-examine the case for a no-fault compensation scheme for medical accidents.

Mr. Darling: This is not a compensation scheme, and never has been since it was set up in 1979. It exists in


recognition of the extra burden that families are obliged to shoulder. As I said in reply to some other hon. Friends earlier, the question of no-fault liability is a matter for the Lord Chancellor; it is not the subject of my statement.
The right thing to do now is to face up to the fact that some 900 children lost out in the past. Today we have an opportunity to resolve some of the problems that they face by increasing the lump sum, making back payments and ensuring that the process by which claims are entertained is much fairer than it was in the past. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and others on both sides of the House for the welcome that they have given today's announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: David Lammy Esq., for Tottenham.

Oral Answers to Questions — Points of Order

4 pm

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to a written answer, reported at column 373W of yesterday's Hansard.
I put a written question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that was prompted by an exchange that took place during Report on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill on 13 June. At that time, the Minister for the Environment said that he had taken advice on the implications on the Bill of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, indeed, of the European convention on human rights.
I know that one cannot ask a Minister or a Department for the advice itself, but the response of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to my written question was simply that the Government do not disclose the legal advice that they receive
nor the source of such advice.—[Official Report, 26 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 373W.]
It would be helpful, Madam Speaker, if you could advise me whether the source of advice external to the Department should be a matter of disclosure. I do not want to know what was said; I simply want to know who advised the Department so that we may judge the quality of the advice.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for kindly supplying me with the question and answer to which he referred. As he knows, I am not responsible for the responses given by Ministers to questions. I can only suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sufficiently ingenious as to table other questions or to raise the matter through the Order Paper in other ways—by such means he might be able to obtain the information he seeks. I understand and take his point; he does not want to know the advice that was given—he wants to know its source. He may find other methods—in questions or other exchanges on the Floor of the House—whereby his question will be answered.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Sometimes, ministerial answers provide a block on further questions of a similar nature. As that answer was unprecedented—as far as I am aware—can we be sure that, until the Government provide some justification, it will be possible for Members to seek information from the Government on this and other issues, and that the Government will not use the answer as a way of blocking similar questions?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time. He and I both know exactly what is meant by the Government blocking further questions. I have not dealt with such a situation for some time, although in my early days as Speaker I had to do so. I cannot give him any guarantees, but I am aware of the point he makes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ministerial Conduct

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for enforcement of the ministerial code of conduct.
I begin with a quotation.
In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government … I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code. Ministers will find the Code a useful source of guidance and reference as they undertake their official duties in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
The House will recognise the quotation. It is from the foreword to the ministerial code, written personally by the Prime Minister in July 1997.
In January, Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life found that:
The effect of the foreword is to underline the status of the Code as the Prime Minister's document, written not only as guidance for Ministers but also as a pledge to the public.
It also said that the role of the Prime Minister should be clarified. It pointed out:
The Prime Minister remains the ultimate judge of the requirements of the Code and the appropriate consequences of breaches of it.
Therefore, this is the Prime Minister's code; he is its author. To quote the Cabinet Secretary, it bears the Prime Minister's "personal imprint".
The Prime Minister, however, declines to enforce the code. As the House knows, the Deputy Prime Minister, somewhat grandly, has four residences—one a flat on Clapham common occupied by his son. That flat is owned by the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union and the Deputy Prime Minister is also the Secretary of State responsible for transport.
Hon. Members are probably not familiar with all the provisions of chapter 9 of the ministerial code on Ministers' private interests. Paragraph 113 deals specifically with trade unions. It says:
There is.. no objection to a Minister holding trade union membership but care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest. Ministers should arrange their affairs so as to avoid any suggestion that a union of which they are a member has any undue influence.
There can be no question but that the Deputy Prime Minister has failed to do that. I quote again:
They … should receive no remuneration from a union.
The controlled rent on the flat is at least £12,000 a year less than the market rate. Although I do not suggest any improper behaviour by the Deputy Prime Minister, most people would see that as a considerable financial benefit.
Paragraph 114 states:
Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or apparent conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interests.
Can anyone doubt that there is at the very least an apparent conflict of interest between the duties of the Secretary of State responsible for transport and his beneficial tenancy of a flat from a transport union? The principle is stated in paragraph 126:
It is a well-established and recognised rule that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him under an obligation.

Paragraph 109 states:
Ministers will want to order their affairs so that no conflict arises or is thought to arise between their private interests … and their public duties. Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest but Ministers should submit any such case to the Prime Minister for his decision.
Sadly, the Prime Minister is unwilling to tell us whether this case has been put to him for his decision. Nor do we know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has consulted his permanent secretary, as required by paragraph 118. That becomes very relevant in considering the Transport Bill, on which the RMT not surprisingly made representations and on which the Deputy Prime Minister led the debate.
Even more relevant was the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, brought in by the Deputy Prime Minister's Department, which specifically capped increases in rent on flats such as his. Under paragraph 110 of the code, the right hon. Gentleman should have declared his interest to ministerial colleagues and
remained entirely detached from the consideration of that business.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said that she would have
expected Mr. Prescott to have made some mention within his Department of his interest in the subject matter of the order.
We should remember that this statutory instrument would have had a direct effect on the right hon. Gentleman's personal circumstances. The Parliamentary Commissioner also found that the Deputy Prime Minister
should certainly have registered the benefit obtained from his tenancy of the flat.
Unfortunately, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges overruled the commissioner for reasons best known to itself—a bizarre decision, in my view, especially because it then "invited" the Deputy Prime Minister to register the flat.
I hope that I have demonstrated that this is a very obvious breach of the letter and spirit of the ministerial code for which the Prime Minister is personally responsible. However, the Prime Minister has seen fit to ignore this contravention of his code.
In a letter to a Conservative colleague, the Prime Minister deliberately confused the code of conduct for Members—for which the House of Commons has responsibility—and his own ministerial code. He pretended that the decision of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges "vindicated" the breaches of the ministerial code—when the Committee could not even consider the subject.
Yesterday, I received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson. It said:
It is not for me … to adjudicate publicly on Ministers' conduct. The Prime Minister is fully satisfied that John Prescott has done nothing which in any way, shape or form reflects on his integrity or his ability to do his job.
I accept that reply, but Sir Richard is, of course, responsible for the conduct of civil servants. I wonder whether and how he would have judged a civil servant who ignored the rules in such a manner.
The Prime Minister is wilfully blind to this clear breach of the ministerial code. Members must decide for themselves the cause of this blindness. It is not the Nelsonian blind eye which all Britons used to be taught


to admire. On the contrary, it exposes the dishonesty of the Government, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber might join me in condemning that.
Since RMT members complained and exposed the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, he has shown breathtaking arrogance. He has treated the parliamentary commissioner with disdain verging on contempt; he has ignored the request of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that he register his interest; and he still refuses to concede that the ministerial code might even apply to him. He has made no attempt to distance himself from his benefactor or to put the matter right. Had he been a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, he would have been obliged to resign long ago. He should resign now.
Who on the Government Benches recalls the Prime Minister telling all Labour Members—

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley): rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Ten-minute Bills are not usually interrupted.

Mr. Robathan: Who on the Government Benches recalls the Prime Minister telling all Labour Members a week after Labour's election victory that they were not in government to enjoy "the trappings of power"? Does the Prime Minister believe that this is an illustration of the "highest standards of propriety" which he then demanded? Members may doubt it. This may explain why within the past month the Prime Minister has twice refused to give evidence on the workings of the ministerial code to the Select Committee on Public Administration. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore shown that he is neither fit nor capable to administer his own code.
Ten-minute Bills can be used to highlight many issues. I hope that the House, including some honest Labour Members, will agree that this is an issue—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has kept within the bounds of the motion but he is now going far from them. I ask him to withdraw his last remark.

Mr. Robathan: I certainly withdraw, Madam Speaker. I hope that all Labour Members will agree that this is an issue of genuine and great concern. I feel that we should

beware of over-regulating the behaviour of Members, but in the case of Ministers there can be no doubt, as the Prime Minister agrees, that the "highest standards" of behaviour and propriety should be seen to be enforced. This case makes a mockery of the words and spirit of the ministerial code. It can only further undermine public respect for Ministers and other politicians.
My Bill would leave the day-to-day workings of the code in the hands of the Prime Minister. However, it would provide for a final judgment to be allowed by Lord Neill's committee. I would not envisage that involving many cases, but they would be ones of great importance. The Bill would oblige the Prime Minister to ensure that his Ministers obeyed his own code and that his actions matched his empty rhetoric.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Martin Bell.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr. Andrew Robathan accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for enforcement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 147].

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am genuinely concerned about the use of the ten-minute Bill procedure for individual venting of spleen, especially when the Select Committee on Standard and Privileges has dealt with the matter on behalf of the House. 1 am concerned that Members should be able somehow to circumvent the judgment of that Committee when the procedure should be used for other purposes.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. As I explained during the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I listened carefully to every word he uttered and was ready to stop him if he went too far or failed to remain within our rules of procedure. However, let me say again those wise words of "Erskine May", which I have not repeated in the House for some time:
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides will take those words to heart.

Orders of the Day — Learning and Skills Bill [Lords] [Ways and Means]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the making of provision for the manner in which payments to trainees are to be treated for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.
This Ways and Means resolution is necessary to ensure that we can give effect to amendments to the Employment Act 1988 by means of the Learning and Skills Bill. The amendments that we shall introduce later this afternoon are necessary, in part, to ensure that money paid to trainees continues to be exempted from income tax. The Secretary of State is currently able to use his powers under section 26 of the Employment Act to ensure that money paid to trainees is not rendered subject to income tax. Money is paid to trainees by the Secretary of State by means of his powers under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973.
Later today, we propose to amend the Employment Act 1988 by means of the Learning and Skills Bill to allow the Secretary of State to exercise similar judgments over persons who receive moneys in respect of training provided by the Learning and Skills Council and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales. The Learning and Skills Council and the NCETW will become responsible for securing provision for many of those trainees under sections 2, 3, 31 and 32 respectively, and they will be able to pay money to trainees under sections 5(1)(c) and 34(1)(c) respectively. The Ways and Means resolution that covered section 26 of the 1988 Act did not extend to persons who are in receipt of allowances under 5(1)(c) or 34(1)(c) of the Learning and Skills Bill. That is why we have introduced today's Ways and Means resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Learning and Skills Bill [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order: new Clauses relating to city academies; amendments relating to Clauses 124 to 126 and Schedule 8; New Clauses relating to selective admissions policy; amendments relating to Clause 135; New Clauses relating to Part I; amendments relating to Part I; New Clauses relating to Part II; amendments relating to Part II; New Clauses relating to Part III; amendments relating to Part III; New Clauses relating to Part IV; amendments relating to Clauses 71 to 123 and Schedule 7; amendments relating to Clauses 127 to 134; amendments relating to Clauses 136 to 143 and Schedules 9 and 10; Remaining New Clauses; New Schedules; amendments relating to Schedule 11.

New Clause 20

CITY ACADEMIES: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

'In section 483 of the Education Act 1996 (city colleges: financial provisions) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

"(3A) If the school is a city academy, subsection (3) shall apply with such modifications (if any) as may be specified by the Secretary of State by order."'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 84, in clause 124, page 59, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) In subsection (2), omit subsections 2(b) and (c) and insert "and either

(b) provides education for pupils of different abilities who have attained the age of 11 and who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated, and has a broad curriculum with an emphasis either on science and technology or on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts, or
(c) provides education for pupils of high ability selected by examination, and has a broad curriculum with an emphasis on such specialisms as the governing body may decide.".'.

Amendment No. 85, in page 59, line 22, at end insert—
'() Mathematics;
() English language and literature;'.
Amendment No. 86, in page 59, line 23, at end insert—
'(2B) The city academy or college may select up to 10 per cent. of its admissions by reference to aptitude for each of the subject areas listed in section (2A).'.
Amendment No. 71, in page 59, line 32, at end insert—
'() After subsection (3A) insert—
(3B) Before entering into an agreement under this section in relation to a school to be known as a city academy, the Secretary of State must consult the local education authorities referred to in subsection (3C) about the establishment of the school.


(3C) The authorities are—

(a) the local education authority in whose area the school is to be situated, and
(b) if the Secretary of State thinks a significant proportion of the pupils at the school is likely to be resident within the area of another local education authority, that authority.".'.

Amendment No. 75, in page 59, line 36, at end insert—
'(6A) Sections 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92 and 99 to 103 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall apply to city academies as if they were maintained schools insofar as they relate to the powers and functions of the Adjudicator.'.
Amendment No. 79, in page 59, line 36, at end insert—
'(6A) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe the proportion of pupils entering city academies each year who may be selected on the basis of their aptitude; and (notwithstanding section 139(2) of this Act) an order made under this subsection shall be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 80, in clause 125, page 59, line 40, at end add—
(3) The Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament each year on the operation of the provisions contained in Schedule 8'.
Amendment No. 81, in clause 126, page 60, line 4, leave out—
'if the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied'.
Amendment No. 82, in page 60, leave out lines 12 to 16.
Government amendment No. 107.
Amendment No. 72, in schedule 8, page 94, line 31, at end insert—
'(d) before making the scheme the Secretary of State consulted the authority.'.
Government amendments Nos. 108 to 123 and 106.

Mr. Blunkett: I shall try to set an example by being brief, because hon. Members want to raise substantive points relating to the new clause and we have a long day ahead of us.
The Government amendments relate to land transfer and are technical amendments arising from debate in Standing Committee. They provide a fallback position. Land may be transferred out of an education function, thereby triggering a land value that would have to be paid on purchase, rather than being an education transfer which would allow the land to continue to be used for education purposes if it was transferred back to the local authority. The amendments also require the requisite sum to be raised and provided to the authority should the city academy no longer continue to provide the function for which it was intended.
Amendment No. 106 is consequential. It relates to the relationship of authorities with the new Connexions service and will ensure that we have the necessary authority and powers.

Mr. James Clappison: I shall endeavour to follow the Secretary of State's example and be brief. There are important provisions to come and I know that some hon. Members will want to speak about city academies.
The Secretary of State will be aware from proceedings in Standing Committee that the provisions relating to city academies were introduced at the last minute, long after the Bill had passed through the House of Lords—indeed, when the Standing Committee was on the last lap of parliamentary consideration. It was agreed in all parts of

the Committee that the way in which the new policy was introduced was, to say the least, far from ideal. We have already commented on that.
Nevertheless, we share the objective of tackling the problem of underachieving schools, and we are not opposed in principle to city academies. Indeed, it would be difficult to oppose the provision in principle, because its legislative basis is a Conservative Act of Parliament—the Education Act 1996—as the Secretary of State is no doubt aware. There is little difference between city academies and city technology colleges, and they share some of the characteristics of grant-maintained schools as well.
Anyone who is inclined to try to see a difference between city academies and city technology colleges should consult clause 124, which makes it clear that the legislative basis of city academies is a bolt-on to the city technology college provisions of a Conservative Education Act. We are, therefore, waiting for Ministers to say a big thank you to the Conservative Secretary of State who pioneered city technology colleges—[Interruption.] However, given the reaction from the Secretary of State, we are not holding our breath for that. We are tempted to observe, though, that after three years of efforts by the Government to tackle underachieving schools, they have gone back to a policy first unveiled by Kenneth Baker in 1986.
Where does all that leave the Government's fresh start policy? We were told in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), that city academies were not a replacement for fresh start, but he went on to say:
The academies are to be seen as one of the fresh start options.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 June 2000; c. 747.]
That sounds very much as though city academies will supersede fresh start.
There are three Opposition amendments in the group, reflecting our belief that a number of questions relating to city academies remain to be resolved. Amendment No. 79 deals with selection, which we apprehend will be of interest to the Secretary of State. City academies, let it be said, are selective schools. They may select 10 per cent. of each new intake on the basis of aptitude, and they may use banding by ability to admit the remaining 90 per cent.
We have no problem with that extension of selection. Where it leaves the Secretary of State is another matter, but that is a matter for him. Amendment No. 79 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the proportion of pupils selected on the basis of aptitude, and ensure that there was an opportunity for that decision to be scrutinised under the affirmative resolution procedure.
One issue that has not been considered at length—not surprisingly, given the rushed way in which the provision was introduced—is what happens to the pupils of an existing school when it is replaced by a city academy? The city academy prospectus is relevant, as is the revised prospectus, I think, although we received it only today, very shortly before the debate was due to begin, which is in keeping with the way in which everything about the Bill has been produced so far—in a last-minute and disorderly way.
The city academy prospectus tells us:
Where an Academy replaces an existing school, suitable arrangements will have been made to provide for the education of all pupils from the school being replaced.


That is rather vague. It hardly tells us anything at all. Of course, the education of pupils at the existing school must continue. There is a duty for them to continue to be educated. The issue is where are they to be educated?
We should be most grateful if the Secretary of State could now tell us whether the pupils of the existing school that is to be replaced by the city academy—it is in the nature of the city academies that they will replace existing schools—have the right to continue their education at that school. That is far from clear from the prospectus. If the answer is that not all the pupils of the existing school will have the right to continue their education at the city academy, which is what their old school has become, on what basis will pupils of the existing school be admitted to the new city academy?
I turn briefly to amendment No. 80, relating to schedule 8, which contains the power for the Secretary of State to transfer existing schools to the promoters of city academies. I pause—and do no more than that—to consider what the then Opposition would have said if the previous Government had brought forward such a measure. It was evident from hon. Members on both sides in Committee that there were a number of questions about how such schemes would operate. The amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to make an annual report on the matter.
Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 concern the question of children with special educational needs attending city academies, a matter that we were keen to raise in Committee. We note that the revised prospectus for city academies now states that city academies will be expected to admit pupils with special educational needs and with disabilities. There remains the question whether city academies will be regarded as maintained or independent schools for these purposes. This may be of some significance. In Committee, the Minister told us that this would be subject to consultation. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to tell us the timetable for that consultation.
Finally, I return to the revised prospectus, where the deadline of 7 July for written expressions of interest by promoters of the pathfinder projects for city academies no longer appears. It was in the previous prospectus, and has now been dropped. What is the significance of the Government's dropping their deadline of 7 July? We note in the revised prospectus that the Government still hope to agree the first pathfinder projects by the end of this summer, and presumably they still intend to start them in September 2001. The Government are now working on a tight schedule. They got off to what I have already said, with some justification, was a far from ideal start as regards this policy, and it now appears that the deadline for expressions of interest in the pathfinder projects has been shunted back. Will the Secretary of State explain why?

Mr. Graham Brady: I am very pleased to be able to speak on this first group of amendments, relating to city academies, because the topic takes us back to a number of debates in which I have participated over the past three years or so when I have tried to understand the real, fundamental meaning of the education policies that the Government have been trying

to implement. The more I look, the more I have become involved in the debates, and the longer the Secretary of State and his colleagues proceed, the more opaque the Government's destination seems to become.
One of the first things the Government did in this Parliament was to abolish the assisted places scheme, thereby removing from many children, particularly in inner-city areas, access to some of the better schools, often selective schools, which provided great opportunities that were frequently lacking elsewhere. I think of schools in Manchester in particular, which provided opportunities for Manchester's high proportion of inner-city children with very low-income backgrounds.
One of the big priorities in the next year of the Government's term of office was, through what became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, to look at a number of proposals that dealt—although they said "standards", not "structures"—entirely with structures; that was particularly relevant to their views on grammar schools. We shall hear more of that later.
4.30 pm
Now that the Government are in their fourth year of office, it is odd that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, they are adopting some of the ideas that were central to the previous Government's drive to raise standards in education. That is especially true of the policy on city academies. However, it is regrettable that Ministers do not appear to have the courage to pursue some of their sensible, correct and logical ideas to their logical end.
If the Government believe that the scheme constitutes a formula for raising education standards in the inner cities, and that the new arrangement of establishing private, independent schools, which are funded by the state, and are able to select pupils on ability or aptitude, is a means of raising standards in some schools, why do they limit that agenda to schools that have failed and are being closed down? I have frequently asked Ministers that question, but I have yet to receive a convincing or plausible response.
If raising standards can be achieved by giving greater freedom to inner-city schools, allowing them to select at least a proportion of their pupils and to interview all applicants to the school, which means that they exercise a sort of selection over the whole intake, why will not that method raise standards in all schools in the inner cities and perhaps more widely? Why do Ministers believe that the scheme is relevant only to urban areas? Would not it be appropriate to explore its wider application?
Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 attempt to widen the application of the scheme. I have tabled the amendments in a spirit of hope that Ministers will start to elucidate some of their thinking, and perhaps let hon. Members and the outside world into the secret of their aim. Apparently, they dare not speak its name. They are prepared to establish—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering quietly. I hesitate to step into the schoolmaster's role, but if he has something to say, perhaps he will share it with the whole class. I suggest that he does not know what the end result of his policies will be. If he does, he must realise that it has far-reaching implications. He is beginning to lead us down a road that has some attraction. I compliment him on his first steps on the road.
If the Secretary of State believes that it is appropriate to remove failing schools from the control of local education authorities and that that is a recipe for raising their standards, why does not he accept that the lesson has a far wider application? If he goes further—he seems determined to do that—and provides that not only control of the school, but even its ownership should be transferred from the local education authority, why should the policy apply only to a few failing schools in urban areas? If he believes that it is possible to raise standards in some of our failing schools in inner cities by, like the previous Government, allowing selection on the basis of specific aptitudes or abilities—for example, technological, scientific, artistic or sporting expertise—why will not he tackle the point that I made in amendment No. 85?
Why does the Secretary of State not believe that it is also possible to raise standards by allowing schools to select 10 per cent. according to their aptitude or ability in mathematics, or English language or literature? There is no logic about why it is possible to raise standards for education in the cities by allowing selection according to some areas of skill and aptitude, but not others. We await the Secretary of State's response.

Mr. Blunkett: Oh, I will respond.

Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State promises a response, and it would be nice to imagine that it will be coherent and sensible. He oscillates between saying something that he apparently means and then dismissing it as a joke, so we have not really received any intelligent comments from him on the issue. Apparently, he does not think that these are legitimate matters for debate and he is not prepared to be straightforward and clear with the House or the public about his objectives.
The Secretary of State's city academies are leading in a clear direction which, as I said, may be positive. However, he must answer my questions if he is to convince anyone at all that he understands the implications of his own policies. To say that it is possible to select 10 per cent. of a school's intake according to aptitude for technology, but not to accept that it is possible to select 10 per cent. for aptitude for technology, 10 per cent. for science and 10 per cent. for sports is illogical. That might not be appropriate for all schools. Indeed, I am sure that it would not be. However, it would be sensible—[Interruption.] I am pausing in the hope that the Hansard Reporters can pick up the Secretary of State's response, as I would certainly be intrigued to hear it.
Amendment No. 86 puts forward the following option. Why is it possible to improve standards in schools only by allowing selection according to one small defined element of aptitude? Why not two? Might it not be worth pursuing that? How about sport and mathematics, or sport and languages? Those are perfectly sensible combinations which do not necessarily add up to 100 per cent. selection according to general ability. I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of the Government's position.
I have tabled three amendments which, taken together, would advance the Secretary of State's policy a few years and accelerate it in the direction in which he is already moving. Amendment No. 84 would make it possible to allow 10 per cent. selection in a school predominantly for local children which teaches a broad curriculum. It would also permit an option—not a requirement—which would

add a further string to the Secretary of State's bow and allow some city academies to select pupils on the fair, not arbitrary, basis of ability.
The Secretary of State believes that it is possible to assess children's ability on the basis of an interview and to see how suitable they are for a sporting, scientific or technical college. However, apparently he has some difficulty with the idea that one might undertake that selection by means of examination. Again, I fail to see what sets his mind so firmly against the idea of examination. Arguably, given that the Government and Secretary of State speak so much about social exclusion, they might possibly—indeed, logically—take the view that an interview is a more difficult hurdle for someone from a working-class background in an inner-city area to cross than an examination. Indeed, the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently thinks that that is the case. Of course that is why he thought that entry to some of our best universities was unfair, and he attacked them partly because of their practice of allowing entry by interview. The Secretary of State was one of the few members of the Government to back up his right hon. Friend on that ill-considered foray into the media.
If the Secretary of State strongly believes that it is wrong to allow universities to select by interview because that is an agenda for social exclusion, why does he not feel the same about selection to the schools that he wants to set up under the Bill? Why does not he believe that allowing pupils to be interviewed for places at city academies will also involve a form of social exclusion?
I do not want to be prescriptive or to push schools in one direction or another. I want to allow people to follow another avenue and use another option under amendment No. 84. There may be a need or an opportunity for schools, especially those in some of our bigger cities, which choose to select pupils of high ability by examination—arguably the least arbitrary way in which to assess the ability of applicants—to pursue a less broad, perhaps more academic curriculum. That is only a short step away from the Secretary of State's proposals, and it could be possible under a small amendment that would simply allow another option—additional specialisation in some city academies. I should be interested to know why the Secretary of State thinks that that cannot work.
I want to hear a sensible response from the Secretary of State on why it is possible to select pupils according to ability in some spheres, but why he thinks it unfair, immoral or elitist—I do not know which—to select them according to their ability in other spheres. Why it is good to select according to scientific or technical ability, but never according to mathematical ability? That is the odd position in which he has lodged himself.
Why does the Secretary of State believe that it is right to select on some occasions, but not on others? Why does he apparently believe—he was reported as having said this—that the selective system at Trafford in my local authority, where we achieve the best results in the north-west, is reducing opportunities and standards of attainment in local schools? I am sure that even he, in his serious moments, would accept that that is a fairly odd assertion. However, a little way down the road in the centre of Manchester, he would be happy to set up an education system in his new city academies that would replicate some of the elements that work so well in my own area.
The House has covered some of that territory in considering legislation on grammar schools, which are dealt with in another group of amendments, but the Secretary of State cannot avoid or brush aside many of those matters given that he wants to introduce city academies. There is no real distinction of principle or logic between what he wants the city academies to do and what he apparently objects so vehemently to in other schools. He and his colleagues have given no reasonable, cogent justification for the Government's different stances on those different, but related policies.
I tabled amendments Nos. 84 to 86 in the hope that the Secretary of State would take the opportunity to explain—

Mr. Blunkett: I will if the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I appeal to the House? It is not helpful if we have sedentary comments from the Secretary of State and then hesitation or, indeed, repetition from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brady: It is not I who seeks to be repetitive in these matters, but the Secretary of State, who insists on revisiting these areas of policy. One day he says that there will be no further selection by interview or examination; the next he is happy to propose new amendments to the Bill which would introduce further selection. It is not I, but the Secretary of State who is inconsistent in these matters.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Amendment No. 84 refers to children
who have attained the age of 11.
Does he agree that if children aged 13 or 14 were given the opportunity to select which subjects they wanted to pursue, selection might be even more effective?

Mr. Brady: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, coming from Northern Ireland, which has excellent educational results and a very fine selective system of education, he has good reason to understand what he is talking about.
I do not seek a closed and narrow interpretation of how schools may select according to aptitude or ability, which may be one and the same thing; I seek an open and inclusive approach which would allow all schools some flexibility in respect of selecting from applicants, the means of selection and the age of selection.
The Secretary of State seems to be on the verge of a breakthrough. He seems to be overcoming the obstacle of the out-of-date ideological obsession that Labour Members have had with the idea of selection. He has now reached the point of understanding that selection can work and that in some circumstances, it can raise standards. He has set out some of those circumstances in the Bill. I am urging him on in that breakthrough to go a little further and to understand the opportunities that he is beginning to offer our educational system. If he is open minded and accepts some of the principles in the amendment, we will make progress a little faster towards the end which he and I apparently share.

Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central): I assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that Labour Members do not have an ideological obsession with selection; we have a practical objection, but that is a matter for the next group of amendments and I shall not be tempted to dwell on it now.
It is fair to say that we had a lively exchange in Standing Committee about city academies, and that all hon. Members share my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's interest in inner-city education. Like him, I represent an inner-city area where raising standards is absolutely central to the opportunities and chances of the young people whom I represent.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns that have been raised, in particular on the part of schools that think that they might be considered for city academy status, but whose results are affected by the fact that they take in large numbers of refugee children. That applies particularly to one school in the area that I represent. I am grateful for the consideration that Ministers are giving to that very difficult and important question.
I want to address two of the amendments in the group. The first relates to the need for proper consultation with local education authorities on the establishment of city academies. There is no question whatever about the fact that the proposal will work only if it is a partnership. It would be the worst course of action where local education authorities and local communities were bitterly opposed to innovation in the interest of raising standards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the amendment that relates to the need to ensure that there is proper and effective consultation with local education authorities.
The second issue that I want to address is the subject of amendment No. 75. In Standing Committee there was considerable discussion about the way in which city academies will operate. Ministers said repeatedly that city academies would be expected to abide by various requirements that also apply to maintained schools of whatever character. In particular, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), said:
It is important to stress that the academies will have admission policies consistent with the codes of practice on admissions.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 June 2000; c. 747.]
The prospectus is even clearer on that point; it says:
admissions criteria must be clear, objective and fair … admissions arrangements should be circulated for comment to other admission authorities … City academies should participate in the local admissions forum and establish independent appeals panels.

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the admissions code includes dealing with exclusions, and that under the code the local education authority has a duty to find places for young people who have been excluded from other schools? However, the city academies may not be required to play a part in accepting students who have been excluded elsewhere.

Mr. Benn: I hope that that is not the case, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address that issue when he responds to the debate. If the


city academies are to abide by the full spirit of the code of practice on admissions, all the requirements and obligations that come with it should apply.
One of those obligations, which was not dealt with at length in Committee, is the role of the adjudicator. The purpose of amendment No. 75 is to extend that principle to the functions and duties of the adjudicator as they relate to admissions to city academies. It is not my purpose to discuss at length the role that the adjudicator plays, because—according to Hansard—that was debated at considerable length into the early hours of the morning when the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was considered. The arguments in favour of the adjudicator system are just as strong today.
Parents, local authorities and other schools are entitled to be reassured that if a city academy is established in their area—Ministers have confirmed that it will operate according to the law on admissions and the code of practice—they will have the same rights to refer issues to the adjudicator, whose word will be final in the matters over which Parliament has given him control. In other words, city academies will be no different from other schools when it comes to admissions.
The adjudicator has a particular responsibility to deal with objections referred to him that relate to admission arrangements, including those relating to partial selection, or cases in which selection by aptitude—to which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West referred—is in fact selection by ability. On that issue, right hon. and hon. Members will have been interested to note that of the 500 or so specialist schools that can select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude, only about 7 per cent. actually use that power. I have some sympathy with that, because I can see difficulties in interpreting aptitude. Assessing the interest of pupils in the subject might be a better method. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend, in replying, could assure the House that no aspect of the establishment of city academies will require governing bodies to use the ability to select up to 10 per cent. by aptitude if they choose not to do so. They might choose to follow the pattern of specialist schools elsewhere.
The adjudicator post exists to provide reassurance that admissions arrangements are fair and within the law. The functions were introduced for good reason, and currently apply to maintained schools. I can see no reason why they should not apply to city academies, too.

Mr. Willis: It is sad that we spent 20 minutes on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) which deal with the narrow issue of selection. This is a major Bill, and city academies are one of the most important initiatives of the Government's three years in office. The impact of the Bill on the state education system could be profound. I say that not as a criticism, but as a statement of fact.
There is an argument—as the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said—that if this form of educational organisation is good enough for children in inner-city schools, why is it not good enough for children elsewhere? The Secretary of State must answer that important question. We must not have another tier of organisation that applies to children in so-called failing schools.
The amendments on city academies were tabled at a late stage in Committee. There were full apologies from the Government for that, and we do not wish to reopen

that issue. However, in Committee I asked for the Government's definition of a failing school, as that is important. We need to know whether it means a lack of students getting five grades A to C for three years—the Secretary of State's original definition—or truancy rates, or other criteria that often affect inner-city schools in particular. In order to have a policy that will apply to groups of failing schools, we must have a definition of a failing school. Perhaps the Secretary of State will give us that definition when he responds to the debate.
I refute the idea that is often peddled by the Tory party—and, sadly, by large numbers within the Labour party—that we have a failing state education system. I do not believe that that is the case. Yesterday, in Islington, Tim Brighouse made it clear that all politicians—particularly Members of this House—should be careful about damning our schools, teachers and children simply because they do not meet the norms in some criteria set by the Department for Education and Employment or anyone else. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards would support some, if not all, of those comments.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reject amendments Nos. 79, 84, 85 and 86, which are an attempt by the Opposition to bring in selection by the back door. Amendment No. 85 would allow schools to select on the basis of maths and English testing. That is what the 11-plus was about. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West is passionate about selection and I admire his tenacity. However, he ought to be honest enough to say that it is Tory party policy to seek to reintroduce the 11-plus at the age of 11—as that is what the amendments say—not for a few children but for all children, and that the Tories want to base their education policy on that.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: With respect, I will not, because the hon. Gentleman spent twenty minutes speaking to the amendments. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have constantly sought reassurance from the Secretary of State and the Government about selection. We were ready to believe that it would be a thing of the past. However, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West is right to say that creeping selection has been coming in, first through the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and now through the Bill.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: I do not want to be discourteous.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has returned to his characteristic good manners. Although I am a strong defender of a school system that works well in my area, the purpose of my amendments has nothing to do with the honesty or dishonesty of my party. I am seeking honesty and openness from the Government.

Mr. Willis: The Secretary of State is quite capable of answering for the Government's policy, but the amendments are a clear attempt by the Tory Opposition to introduce selection by the back door. I rest my case.
5 pm
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) spoke to amendment No. 75, and I was delighted when the Secretary of State nodded at my intervention concerning excluded pupils. It was a real anxiety in Standing Committee that a group of schools would be set up that would have the privilege of excluding students while not having to accept excluded students.
Anybody who has worked in the more challenging areas of education knows that dealing with challenging behaviour and difficult students lies at the heart of the solution to underachievement. Until we deal effectively with that problem, we will not reverse the underachievement of many of our young people. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his response to amendment No. 75, will clarify the Government's position.
I have two other matters to raise with the Government. The first has to do with finance. In Standing Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), was not clear about how much state money was to be put into this initiative. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the percentage split in terms of capital will be in the ratio 20:80, and that the private sector partners will have to find the 20 per cent? Will he also confirm that that will be roughly equivalent to £2 million? Does that not mean that each of the new city academies will get £123 per person, as well as the equivalent of £10 million in capital investment?
If that is the case, may I tell the Secretary of State that many schools in all constituencies—urban, inner-city or otherwise—could do with that money? Would it not be an insult to give so much money to a few schools that have been hand-picked by the Secretary of State, when there are huge areas of deprivation in rural areas?
Finally, new clause 20 deals with the question of assets. In Standing Committee, I asked a series of questions about what would happen when a school's freehold was transferred to the private sector company running that school. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), made it clear that if the school folded for any reason, those freehold assets would simply transfer back to the local education authority.
I accept that, but a private company that takes over a school may decide to move site. It could then use the value of the real estate, and other resources, to invest in the new site. What would happen to that site in the event of failure? Would it revert in its totality to the local authority, or would the private sector company be able to take out the real value of its investment there? I hope that the Secretary of State will also respond to that important question.

Valerie Davey: I rise to speak briefly to amendment No. 71, which would include local authorities in the consultation about city academies. I believe that that is crucial if city academies are to be of long-term value.
Hon. Members who represent city areas know that the challenge to provide all young people with the excellent secondary school education that they deserve has not yet been met. That is not because of any lack of dedication among teachers, or lack of commitment among local education authorities, but because of the huge demographic changes that have taken place. Another

contributory factor is the lack of long-term investment in school buildings and their surrounding environments, which in some cases has isolated schools from the wider community.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) acknowledged that the first response of the previous Tory Government was to subsidise the private sector to provide places for able children. However, I contend that only a few such places were ever provided. Their second response was the gesture of city technology colleges. The latter solution, in particular, never benefited the wider community of schools. In many cases the colleges were imposed, with largesse of public, rather than private, funding in areas where there were already surplus places. In some cases they were positively detrimental.
By comparison, this Government have promoted the excellence in cities initiative. In the pilot areas, the project is beginning to meet the aspirations of children and their parents. The collaboration and co-operation that is taking place, which includes local education authorities, schools and the wider community, is bringing new hope to areas where there have been great difficulties, if not a feeling of hopelessness.
Into that scenario of excellence in cities comes the new idea of city academies. In that context of collaboration, the academies must be seen as an extra, complementary facility; cities can integrate them if they wish, but that will not be done without their full collaboration and support.

Mr. Brady: Has the hon. Lady received some assurance from Ministers, which I do not think that the Committee received, that no city academy will be established in an area with surplus places in other schools?

Valerie Davey: I appreciate that intervention. I am sure that that will be a consideration when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks to future city academies.
In Committee, we reflected on the value of the American charter schools. Indeed, we received evidence that in certain cases they have helped to raise standards. When the Education and Employment Committee visited America, we also learned about pilot schools, which were completely within the local education authority system. although they provided initiatives and were getting sponsorship.
We are opening up exciting potential for LEAs, and for the community of schools in each city that is trying to make more excellent provision for its students. However, our approach must be for the whole city community, and it must be considered in the long term. Through its strategic planning, the LEA has a key role in ensuring that that is done, so we need the further consultation.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Education is about the nearest that I get to any religion or belief system—the Labour party is the second nearest. I am most concerned about this add-on to the Bill—a Bill that I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing. It is overdue. For many years, we have endured training schemes and skills development that have been inadequate to meet the needs of Britain in a changing world and certainly to meet the challenge of the global economy.
The city academy add-on trivialises to some extent the great importance of the Bill, to which we need to give 100 per cent. attention. I hope that this evening's proceedings may improve even further the efficacy that the Bill will bring to the learning and skills base within our regions. That is an important part of the development of regional policy. Through the Bill, we have established the need to ensure that the learning and skills councils link properly, comprehensively and coherently with the regional development agencies and with local authorities.
Although the provisions could be strengthened to some extent, by introducing this important Bill real progress has been made. I am afraid that I regard city academies—like city technology colleges—as an education gimmick. If someone were to suggest introducing them to the private sector, no one would take the suggestion seriously. The only selection that has ever applied in the private sector has been by the question, "Do you have the money?" Labour Members should be ensuring that the currency of educational opportunity is rooted in social justice.
In a moment or two, I hope to make a defence of what I regard as the tremendously hard work that many teachers and parents have put into ensuring that our comprehensive system of education is successful. However, I will just say regarding selection that the choice of the figure of 10 per cent. admission by aptitude shows that this is just an add-on—a gimmick. Why 10 per cent? Why concede that there is an argument for setting a benchmark, such as 10 per cent., and saying, "This far and no further"—or, in my case, "Why this far at all?"?
There is no real intellectual clout behind an arbitrary decision of that type, yet the Labour party's view of education has been rooted historically in intellectualism. It has for years and years produced major thinkers on education who wrestled with the problem of the relationship between a professional teacher and the state and the local authority. It has tried to understand and exemplify and improve that relationship for the benefit of children, who are ultimately in the care of teachers.
There are many systems of education and I do not deny that the idea of specialisms, such as they are and such as they may be, has found root and progressed to achievement in other countries. One thinks immediately of America, the home of almost every gimmick thought of in the 20th century, such as bubblegum and wurlitzer organs, but also the origin of the "Fame" series. Was it not attractive? Did it not make our heart beat faster? I am sure that that works very well in America, which has a massively diverse population—200 million people living in cities, many of which are systems in their own right, city states in the true sense of the word, cut off by 1,000 miles from the next tranche of civilisation.
It is not surprising that such a country, diverse as it is, should produce so many diverse ideas, understandings and views about education, but some of them do not travel well. I do not believe that we need a performing arts school, or a technology college, for pupils from the age of 11.
Almost the whole of Labour party policy has been based on the view of various child psychologists and psychiatrists, not least Piaget, who understood and showed the rest of the world the meaning of differing maturation rates. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked whether it would be better if selection

took place at 13 and 14. In truth, it would. If there is to be selection, the later the better; it certainly should not take place at 11.
I previously spoke of the child who at 11 believes that they will be the greatest hockey star, football star or singer that the world has known, but who is fed up with it by the age of 12 and a half. That is the nature of the differing rates at which children mature. Boys and girls mature at different rates. As they grow older, they change, and gain new insights—very often, believe it or not, from teachers in our comprehensive schools—about the value that they should be placing on the education that they receive.
Years ago, in the 1930s, we were worried in this country because our gross domestic product was not growing as fast as that of other nations. We were concerned that we did not seem to be keeping up, and a famous report produced by Professor Hadow suggested that what we really needed in this country was a three-legged approach. We should have grammar schools for our real high fliers and technical high schools for those who show an aptitude for science and technology. In Britain, we have always considered scientists and technologists second grade compared with academics in English, history and so on—and does that not show in our industrial output? Does it not show in the difference between the salaries paid to technical people and to those who—broadly speaking—come through the arts route? Does it not show in the respect that is not shown to science and technology in this country, compared with other countries?

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Purchase: With respect, the hon. Gentleman had long enough to make his case. I would rather not give way.
The Germans took a technical approach and it worked; it fitted the culture and was helpful, but in Britain it failed. If we measure that approach simply by productive output, we see that it worked in Germany, but not in Britain. We have broadly abandoned the technical approach to education, realising that we also need a broader education.

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman is persistent.

Mr. Brady: I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was about to call his attention to the German example. Was not the reason for the failure of the German model in this country the fact that we under-resourced the technical schools, rather than that the grammar schools did not deliver?

Mr. Purchase: My detailed knowledge of the allocation of resources during the period in question is not sufficient to give the hon. Gentleman a proper answer. I think it was much more to do with the fact that we failed to break the culture of elitism. We have not recognised the arts route for what it is—usually, to produce well-rounded people with excellent understanding. We put those who take that route on a platform; indeed, if hon. Members will forgive me for saying so, we put them in the Treasury


and the Foreign Office rather than in the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
In Britain, we have always had that elitism and it has held us back. I do not agree with elitism in education—it is wrong. I cannot say that often enough or loud enough. It has not assisted us to make our way in the world as we should have done. That is my honest view, based on much evidence about the economic performance of various countries.
For more than 50 years, much has been written on the difficulties of selection at the age of 11.

Mr. Clappison: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, what does he make of the Government's proposals, under the excellence in cities programme, for taking between 5 and 10 per cent. of children out of schools and giving them a different form of education?

Mr. Purchase: In case I have not already made it plain, I repeat that such matters are trivia added to an important Bill, although such proposals would be improved if the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) were accepted. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept them—especially the proposals on consultation with local authorities.
However, my view is that this is not the way to proceed. In Committee, we argued about the late tabling of amendments and we agreed to close the book on that matter. However, we are considering an extremely important and coherent Bill that fits comprehensively with Labour's policies on economic development and learning and skills in education, and this is the wrong place to introduce such proposals.
Although there is some evidence that specialism in schools from the age of 11 can be effective, there is not a significant body of evidence. If there were, we should have a serious discussion of the matter, because the situation has gone on for 50 years.
For 40 years of my life, I have done my best to promote comprehensive schools. I believe that entrance at 11 or 13 to an all-ability school, based on a sensible and geographically coherent catchment area, is the best way to attract resources to that school. All children would attend the school and all parents would be involved.
Parents are the most significant element in educational outcomes. When the late Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education and Science, he employed Rodney Lord as a researcher and he carried out an excellent piece of multiple regression analysis work. He identified the individual elements that contribute to good outcomes in schools. Unsurprisingly—most academic exercises fail to surprise—the interest, concern and enthusiasm of parents bore the strongest correlation to pupils' results in school. Although the number of teachers was a factor, the second most important element in achieving successful outcomes in education was experienced teachers. Thirdly, and a long way down the list, came the quality of the buildings and the equipment used. It was clear then and it is clear to a blind man on a galloping horse—[Interruption.] That phrase may be appropriate, but I apologise if it has caused offence. I can sometimes be offensive without wanting to be so deliberately.
It is clear from the evidence that parents are the most important factor in achieving successful outcomes, and a huge body of evidence supports that view. Introducing specialisms at the age of 11 will barely touch the margins of the serious business of educating our young people.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Given the hon. Gentleman's real reservations about the Bill, will he be clear on one matter? Does he intend to oppose the Bill on Third Reading?

Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman should know better than to ask. I told him in Committee that I would not give Conservatives a cheap thrill by voting against a Labour Government. He must be mad; there is absolutely no possibility of my doing that.
I have described this issue as trivia, because it is at the margins. I want my hon. Friends to realise that the proposal is not helpful and that it is time consuming. It will not add sufficiently to the value of state education and the comprehensive system to justify the time that we have taken away from discussing the other provisions in this vital Bill. I want to spell it out that I believe that the wide view in the Labour party is that the Victorian and early 20th century approach, of selection at the age of 11, is not a sensible policy for us to dabble with. It is contrary to all the evidence. This time, I use the word "dabble" deliberately, and this time I intend to be offensive.
The proposal prompts an important question about education generally. In the 1970s, Bernstein wrote that education could not compensate for society; it can only play a part. Our teachers have our children for a few hours a day for 40 weeks a year and the part that we play as parents and grandparents, as I am now, is vital to ensuring that young people understand the importance of education in its broadest sense.
I have referred to the French approach to education and to the baccalaureat. That is too prescriptive for my liking, because we can give teachers more responsibility and freedom to teach than did the previous Government. I hope that this Government will ease up on the curriculum imperatives, because I trust teachers. I believe that they have been trained properly and that many of them have a strong vocation to teach. They should be respected and rewarded. However, I should perhaps declare an interest: one of my daughters is a teacher.
The issue goes much wider than specialist schools. Specialism is sometimes good on television, and "Fame" was great. I know that some young people will benefit from that sort of education, but as a nation we must opt for a broad education. I accept, however, that there are occasions when it is appropriate to develop the specialisms that many young people show, some at 11 and some at seven. Other people even do so at six or five—we read of children taking O-levels at six years of age. However, these are the exceptions to the mainstream for which we should first be catering. We should cater for those with lower abilities and for those with higher abilities, within a comprehensive system of state education that is administered honestly and with children's welfare and education in mind.
I respect and admire the many teachers who, if they hear about the debate, will say, "I wonder whether my school will eventually be replaced. I wonder whether we will not quite come up to spec." I urge my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State and all who have responsibilities in these matters to stop damning schools. Would the managing director of a huge group of companies who condemned one line of his business—such as the managing director of Ratner—imagine that anyone would want to work for it? Of course not. We need to give more encouragement to education, not less.
There should be a long period of proper development of education policy. Gimmicks will not do. I welcome the Bill and believe that it is absolutely to be supported. I think that it would be wrong to divide on Third Reading, but no doubt Conservative Members will do so. Overall, the Bill sets out an excellent approach to skills and training. It will give a boost to regional policy and I welcome it in every respect—except for the issue of city academies.

Mr. Blunkett: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) that I never use the whip when I am on my galloping horse. I assure him also that much of the policy that he enunciated is held in common by Labour Members. However, we would distinguish between this debate and the issue of excellence in cities, to which I shall turn, in relation to which the "gifted and talented" programme is about children within a school and not outside it. I am sure that, as in so many other areas, Wolverhampton will want to take full advantage of excellence in cities. I hope to be able to expand that approach once the outcome of the spending review is known.
I shall first respond briefly to the general points that have been raised. I, too, have read parts of Piaget's work, parts of Haddow and a little of Bernstein. I have read also Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences. There is a real intellectual debate to be had about how we develop the specialist talents of children, and how, by using the confidence and self-esteem that comes from the development of a particular specialism or talent, we can cascade that into general achievement levels, so that horizons can be broadened and self-belief increased.
I believe that that is also true of schools. Building on the strength within a school—and the development within it of a particular strength—can be the making or breaking of a school whose reputation and general esteem in the community, along with its status and standing, have fallen to the point at which parents, who have a preference, can vote with their feet. In more than 60 per cent. of schools which have been in special measures or which have fallen into weakness since 1996, rolls have fallen dramatically. In schools that we define as having challenges, we find that numbers fall. Places are available, and as a result children move into these schools, in-year from other areas or because they have been excluded from other schools. Such schools' challenges become more difficult by the moment. The point is reached at which children do not move in from more affluent areas—parents do not exercise their preference in favour of those schools from outside the area. There is neither struggle to gain entry nor over-demand for places—only a decline in the number enrolled, and real problems regarding the school's survival. That is the issue that city academies can address.
5.30 pm
City academies are not like the old city technology colleges—15 of them parachuted in like cuckoos in the

nest, for good or ill. They were not welcomed as a solution to a problem, nor did they complement or replace struggling schools. They took children away from schools that were struggling to survive. Let me make it clear that our proposals are the reverse of city technology colleges. Like fresh start generally, city academies are about taking a school or schools in which the state of enrolment, the problems of education and the failure of parental preference have led to there being only two choices—to do something drastic, or to close the school or schools.
If schools close, children in the area and the community in general lose a facility and, gradually—as we have seen in cities across the country—the preference for secondary schools in the local neighbourhood is no longer available to those living in the inner city, because secondary school places have been pushed out toward the outer ring: indeed, in some cities, such as Bristol, they have been pushed beyond the city boundary altogether. As it has done in North America, preference moves outward to the point at which the community school no longer exists.
Hon. Members should look at reality—at the schools that are not in any meaningful sense comprehensive because their intake is not balanced. Many of the schools in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) struggle not to cope with children referred from other areas of the city but to retain the confidence of parents and children in their own area. In affluent areas, there is over-demand for places, and parents struggle to get their child in. I want to reverse that. If 10 per cent. admission by aptitude will help to get children from the south-west of Sheffield into schools in the north-east of Sheffield, I will go for it, because in Sheffield, a city of half a million people whose south-west area is the size of a London borough, there is currently not a single child from the south-west going to school in the north-east—not one.
Let us get real. We are talking about a solution for schools that need a transformation. They need changes to their image, status and attractiveness. If aptitude for a particular specialism will help, I shall go for it—although I emphasise that it is entirely voluntary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) rightly said, most specialist schools that already have the option of 10 per cent. admission by aptitude have not chosen to take it, because they have decided that they can attract and retain children who have an aptitude without going through any sort of interview or making any assumptions about the child.

Mr. Willis: I hear what the Secretary of State is saying about city technology colleges. I ran a school in Leeds—John Smeaton community high school—which took children from some of the most deprived areas in the city: there was an intake of 301 every year and there was a waiting list. What is the right hon. Gentleman saying to that school's staff, parents and children, who, despite all their hard work, will get absolutely nothing out of his initiative? Communities throughout the country will be in exactly the same position—discarded because of their success.

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I am genuinely angry. We are not disavowing or disadvantaging other schools. I have made it clear that the admissions code will hold, and that schools cannot be parachuted in. They will be welcomed as replacements for


one or more existing schools. They will not be parachuted in, and will not be established where there are surplus places and where they would damage other schools' intake.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the leadership, quality and drive of the school will not be affected. On the contrary, a number of local authorities, sponsors and local communities—including that of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—are clamouring for a city academy in their area, not to knock out success and aspiration but to replace failure and under-achievement.
That is the purpose of the measure. It may be a flea on an elephant's behind, to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East slightly. [Interruption.] Elephants carry fleas and a great deal more. Sometimes the elephant can afford to carry the flea. We have 7 million children and 24,000 schools, but in some schools and in some communities, children are not living up to the aspirations and standards that we seek.
With common admissions, with coherent co-operation, and with a desire to ensure that we put aside the garbage that we have heard this afternoon about selection on the basis of maths and English, we can do something for schools that would otherwise fail and thereby fail their children. We can do it for communities that welcome this initiative.
I shall deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and in particular the prolonged oration of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

Mr. John Bercow: An excellent oration.

Mr. Blunkett: It was an excellent oration was it? So specialisms should be on the basis of maths and English, should they? Only someone who accepts that a minority of children can excel at maths and English could even begin to suggest that maths and English were specialisms. That is why there were grammar schools: 25 per cent. got in and were tested in maths and English, and 75 per cent. were presumed not to be able to make the standard in maths and English.
We are reversing that. We have set a target of more than 75 per cent. being able to make level 4 in maths and English, and we will attain it. If we had a specialism in maths and English, we would be well away, would we not? We would be able to say which 25 per cent. of children would not be able to get into the schools specialising in maths and English.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West did not suggest that as a serious proposition, but as what the shadow spokesman for health might describe as a Trojan horse. In other words, Opposition Members would like to be able to say that they want to bring back the 11-plus, but the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who purports to be the shadow Secretary of State has not yet worked up the courage to say it. Perhaps she is waiting

for the Leader of the Opposition to say it, so that she can back in on him. I am waiting for his speech next month, to see whether that is the new—or rather, old—Tory policy.

Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I am not giving way. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was only joking, was he? I was paraphrasing George Bush. I do not know who he was paraphrasing, other than himself.
Let us deal with the idea that all specialisms could be the basis for 10 per cent. of admissions. If we had 15 specialisms, we would presumably get to 150 per cent. admissions. The proposition is so obviously mathematically silly as to be nonsense.
I want to touch on the issue of aptitude, as opposed to selection. The Education Act 1944 recognised aptitude. The previous Government were so keen to ensure that there was a distinction between aptitude and selection that they commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to define it, and accepted the definition.
I do not know where Opposition Members get the notion that we have been converted to selection; that having converted to selection, we are on their path; and that having taken their path, we are now using aptitude as selection, whereas they themselves commissioned work to show the difference between aptitude and selection. I do not mind them poking fun. I do not mind them having an afternoon out. What I do mind is whether children receive a decent education. If special schools, with opportunity in relation to aptitude, and the city academies can lift their standing and transform the education, I am all for that.

Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that my amendments sought to draw out some sensible arguments from him. One of the most important, on which I should like to know his thinking, is why 10 per cent. is the correct figure. Why not 5 per cent? Why not 15 per cent? My amendments are very unlikely to become law when the Bill becomes an Act, but the right hon. Gentleman must answer some of those questions.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not have to answer any of them—not least because the answers were given by the previous Secretary of State. These debates were held when the previous Government sought to extend from 10 per cent to 50 per cent. the selection on top of aptitude. That selection is now being dealt with by the adjudicator system, which neatly brings me to the issue of the adjudicator and admissions.
I have made it absolutely clear that schools will adhere to the admissions code. The issue, then, is how to ensure that there is a right of appeal. I would put the following points to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central with regard to his amendment No. 75. It is clear—and I shall make it explicit in the funding agreement—that city academies will co-operate with the admissions forum and seek to work in partnership with other schools in the neighbourhood. This is a collaborative, not a competitive, approach.
In order to ensure that we can meet the intention of amendment No. 75, I will not only stipulate in the agreement that that is the case: I will ensure that, as with


aided schools, there can be a direct appeal to the Secretary of State in lieu of the adjudicator. We have that at the request of the religious foundations—the Churches—for aided schools. The same approach is right for city academies. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, since that approach meets both his and the Government's objectives.

Mr. Willis: What about exclusions?

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds me of that issue. The answer to the question that he raised in his speech is that city academies will be dealt with on the same basis. The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked about children attending a school that becomes a city academy. If a city academy replaces an existing school, they are obviously part of its core entry. That must be so, because the whole objective, unlike that of CTCs, is to transform the life chances and educational opportunities of the very children who have been losing out. That is why the city academy approach is being tried, to ensure that we get it right.
To those who ask "Why not simply extend it to everybody?" I reply "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Mr. Bercow: Ah.

Mr. Blunkett: I don't know about "Ah". I recall the argument that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised a few moments ago, which made me angry. If a school is doing well, reinforce it, support it, encourage it, celebrate the work of the head and the teachers. If it needs a fresh start, let it have one, rather than allowing it to close.

Mr. Clappison: On the point about what happens to existing pupils, does the Secretary of State agree that the prospectus is hardly crystal clear? It states:
Where an Academy replaces an existing school, suitable arrangements will have been made to provide for the education of all pupils from the school being replaced.
Does the Secretary of State guarantee today that all pupils from the existing school will be able to attend the city academy?

Mr. Blunkett: We are considering parental preference. When a school is failing, some parents may well wish to send their children to other schools, and I would not preclude them from doing that.
Let me consider briefly the other topics that have been mentioned. First, I am not sure why the Opposition tabled amendments on special educational needs. Either they, like us, want special needs children to be admitted or they do not. It is an outrage if they do not; if they do, I am not sure why they have tabled the amendments. If they decide to press them, we shall know the answer. I have stated our position on ensuring the admittance of special needs children, and I hope that the Opposition will not press their amendments.

Mr. Clappison: If the Secretary of State has got the idea that the Opposition do not want children with special educational needs to attend city academies, there is no

basis for it. We pressed the point with the Minister in Committee. As I hope I made it clear in my opening speech, we tabled the amendment to press the Government on their plans for consultation.

Mr. Blunkett: Good. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to press the Government.
Site value has been mentioned. I want to put it on the record that if the land initially acquired for the city academy was sold as part of a programme of renewal and replacement, the original site value, adjusted for inflation, would be returned to the donor, whether a local authority or a sponsor.
I want to deal with the points that my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Leeds, Central made. I am pleased to accept amendments Nos. 71 and 72. The purpose of our endeavour is to gain co-operation in raising standards. If, through consultation and inclusion, we can ensure that people are engaged with and support the process, that must be the right way forward. In conjunction with that, we must ensure that people are part of and positively engaged with excellence in cities, when an academy exists in an excellence in cities area now or in future. I shall make that explicit in the funding agreement.
We can therefore put to rest once and for all the idea that we are dealing with a Trojan horse. We are dealing with an endeavour to co-operate with a policy that will transform the standing of a school, the standard of education for the pupils, and the commitment of sponsors and partners to making it work. It will, through a specialism, bring lifeblood into a school that would otherwise be in danger of closing as parents opted to take their children elsewhere.
We are pleased to take the line that we reinforce aspects that are working well. Intervention must be in inverse proportion to success. However, when schools are failing, we have an obligation to the children to substitute the reality of action for past dogma, to ensure that those children get the education that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 124

CITY COLLEGES AND ACADEMIES

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 59, line 32, at end insert—
'() After subsection (3A) insert—
(3B) Before entering into an agreement under this section in relation to a school to be known as a city academy, the Secretary of State must consult the local education authorities referred to in subsection (3C) about the establishment of the school.
(3C) The authorities are—

(a) the local education authority in whose area the school is to be situated, and
(b) if the Secretary of State thinks a significant proportion of the pupils at the school is likely to be resident within the area of another local education authority, that authority.".'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be helpful if hon. Members were a little more audible when the Question was put. That would assist the occupant of the Chair.

Schedule 8

CITY ACADEMIES: LAND

Amendments made: No. 107, in page 94, line 31, at end insert—
'or the Secretary of State thinks it is about to be no longer so used.'.
No. 72, in page 94, line 31, at end insert—
'(d) before making the scheme the Secretary of State consulted the authority.'.
No. 108, in page 94, line 47, at end insert—
'(4A) A scheme must be so expressed that it does not come into force while the land concerned is used as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b).'.
No. 109, in page 95, line 1, after first "force" insert "(a)".
No. 110, in page 95, line 1, at end insert—
', or
(b) on the day it otherwise identifies as the day for it to come into force.'.
No. 111, in page 95, line 14, leave out from first "to" to end of line 15 and insert—
'make a disposal in respect of the interest, or to enter into a contract to make a disposal in respect of it, or to grant an option to make an acquisition in respect to it.'.
No. 112, in page 95, line 21, leave out "to" and insert "in favour of'.
No. 113, in page 95, line 24, leave out "acquire" and insert "make an acquisition".
No. 114, in page 95, line 35, leave out "dispose" and insert—
'make a disposal in respect'.
No. 115, in page 95, line 37, after "interest" insert "concerned".
No. 116, in page 95, line 41, after "disposal" insert "in respect".
No. 117, in page 95, line 43, after "interest" insert "concerned".
No. 118, in page 96, line 10, at end insert—
'3A.—(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3—

(a) references to a disposal in respect of an interest are to a disposal of the whole interest or of a lesser interest;
(b) references to an acquisition in respect of an interest are to an acquisition of the whole interest or of a lesser interest.

(2) If the disposal referred to in paragraph 3(3) or (5) is a disposal of a lesser interest, the reference there to the interest concerned is to the lesser interest.'.
No. 119, in page 96, line 10, at end insert—
'Restriction on appropriation
3B.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) a freehold or leasehold interest in land is held by a local education authority,
(b) at any time in the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this Act is passed the land was used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a county school or community school, and
(c) the authority proposes to make an appropriation of the land under section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972.

(2) Unless the Secretary of State consents, the authority must not make the appropriation.

3C.—(1) This paragraph applies if an authority makes an appropriation in contravention of paragraph 3B(2).

(2) The Secretary of State may purchase the interest concerned compulsorily.
(3) Paragraph 3(6) to (9) apply to a compulsory purchase of an interest under sub-paragraph (2) above as they apply to a compulsory purchase of an interest under paragraph 3(5).'.

No. 120, in page 96, line 26, at end insert—
'and
(c) the first or the second condition set out below is satisfied. (1A) The first condition is that-'.
No. 121, in page 96, line 29, at end insert—
'(1B) The second condition is that, although the school concerned continues to be a city academy, the interest ceases to be held for the purposes of the city academy.'.
No. 122, in page 96, line 32, leave out "(b)" and insert—
'(2A) Sub-paragraph (1A) applies'.
No. 123, in page 96, line 36, leave out "mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(d)" and insert "holding it".—[Mr. Blunkett.]

New Clause 9

SELECTIVE EDUCATION POLICY: LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

'.(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall be amended as follows.

(2) After section 104(3) there is inserted—

"(3A) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that within a prescribed local education authority more than four per cent. of pupils admitted to secondary schools in the year 1999–2000 were admitted to grammar schools, that local education authority shall be designated as having a selective education policy."

(3) In section 106(3)(a), after "above" there is inserted "(save that where a local education authority operates a selective education policy as designated under section 104(3A), and no ballot under section 105(2)(a) has previously been conducted within that local education authority area, the request for a ballot must be made by a number of eligible parents equal to at least one per cent. of all parents falling within (1)(a) or (b) above).".'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Grammar schools: retention of selective admission arrangements—

() In the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

(a) in section 104 (designation of grammar schools), omit subsection (4)
(b) omit sections 105 to 108 (procedure for ballots to determine retention or discontinuance of selective admission arrangements) and
(c) in section 109 (proposals by governing body to and selective admission arrangements) omit subsections (3)(b) and (4).'.

Dr. Ladyman: It is probably appropriate for me to begin by declaring an interest. I live in my constituency, I am a dad and I raise my family in my constituency. What I believe is best for my children I also want to see delivered to all my constituents' children. At the moment, my constituents do not have the best form of secondary


education system and I very much want to see it improved for them. They should be able to engage in debate about our secondary education system and to have a vote on whether it should continue in its current form.
The purpose of the new clause is simply this. In local education authorities in which there is nothing apart from a selective system of secondary education and when there has not previously been a ballot on the selective education policy of the local education authority, it should be necessary only to get 1 per cent. of eligible parents to sign a petition in order to have a ballot. That would make it practicable to move towards a ballot on a selective education system in areas such as Kent.
I shall provide some background to the debate for hon. Members who are not familiar with Kent. There are no comprehensive schools in Kent. We have only grammar schools and high schools. Selection for grammar schools is on the basis of the 11-plus which, in Kent, is called the Kent test. Twenty-four per cent. of children go to grammar schools, and the remaining children go to what are euphemistically called high schools. One or two schools aspire to offer a comprehensive system of education. A laudable effort, for example, is made by the Catholic Church, which tries to encourage Catholic pupils of all abilities to go to the few dedicated Catholic secondary schools. In an area in which 24 per cent. of pupils are selected at age 11 to go to grammar schools, I would argue that, in effect, it is impossible, for any school to offer a truly comprehensive system of education. The size and scale of the selection distorts the process so completely that, practically and economically, it is impossible for a school that does not have access to the 24 per cent. of brightest pupils to provide services to bright pupils.
In my constituency, and throughout my county, parents who do not believe in the 11-plus may choose for their children not to sit the test. If they make that choice, their children will not go to a comprehensive school, as there are none, but to a secondary modern school. Whatever one calls such schools they are not, as Kent county council tries to describe them, wide ability schools. They are only wide ability in so far as they serve the 76 per cent. of children who do not go to grammar school. They are secondary modern schools. Throughout Kent, it is as if the education system has been preserved in aspic since the early 1960s—as if no one has ever even thought of introducing comprehensive education.
There is no parental choice—none whatsoever. I shall go further on that subject, as part of painting the background to my amendment. Selection is not just about the 11-plus. As a result of the distorted selective education system in Kent, children are selected, first of all, according to wealth. If one is rich enough, one's children go to one of the public schools that serve the county. Children are then selected according to academic ability at 11. If they fail to get into a grammar school on that test, they are selected by postcode and, if they are lucky enough to live in a middle-class area, they go to a middle-class secondary modern provided in the area.
Some council estates in my constituency rank among the poorest in the United Kingdom, and have male unemployment approaching 60 per cent. If children happen to live in one of those poorer parts of the community, they go to a secondary modern which, effectively, is a sink school. The day that a child arrives at that school he or she will find that at least 70 per cent.

of their peers arriving with them have special needs. Is it any surprise that that school then delivers poor statistics in the GCSE league tables? Sometimes, those schools are close to the bottom—indeed, sometimes even at the bottom—of the league tables, which reinforces the impression of their failure. Even though teachers in those schools are highly motivated, may add huge value to those children and be doing their very best for those kids, parents get the impression that those schools are at the bottom of the ladder, so they try to avoid them.
One of the biggest piles of constituency casework that I get is from all the parents who find that their child has been allocated one of those sink schools, even though they did not include it on their list of preferences as a school that they wished their child to attend. Someone, however, has to go to that school, and parents' first recourse on receiving the letter informing them of that is to contact their Member of Parliament to see whether there is any way of getting out of it. I am afraid that there is not, and I have to sit and explain to parents the realities of living with a system in which selective education distorts the life and educational prospects of all our children.

Mr. Brady: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. Is it not the case that, if those schools were neighbourhood comprehensives, the same selection by postcode would happen? A neighbourhood comprehensive serving a more affluent area will tend to draw its pupils from that area, whereas one serving one of the least prosperous areas will tend to draw its pupils from that area.

Dr. Ladyman: Of course there are distortions in any education system. There are more distortions in the system than that of intellectual ability. However, if those schools were true comprehensives, had a full range of ability and a full wide syllabus for all their children, at least they would have the opportunity to raise their standards and their pupils would have aspirations higher than getting through their few years of secondary education. They would have the aspiration of trying to go on to further and higher education which, in many cases, they do not have in the distorted system that we must work with today.
One head teacher told me that the system is evil. He did not say that it is slightly less good than the other system or marginally inefficient, or that it is worth having a debate about changing it. He called the selective education system in Kent evil. He is not an apologist for the Labour Government. Indeed, this particular head teacher is one of the biggest pains in my backside. He frequently objects to funding policies, to the Secretary of State's comments and to Government policies on a range of issues. He was a pioneer of the grant-maintained system and took his school to that status when it was an option. He is not an apologist for the Labour Government, but he calls the system evil. I agree with him. I have not spoken to any head teacher of any high school in my constituency who believes that Kent's selective education system is appropriate. One or two are worried about the disruption that would follow a change in the system, but none agree fundamentally with the system.
I can tell the House that, although they will not say it in public, support for the selective system is not unanimous even among the head teachers of the grammar schools, of which there are four in my constituency. The Kent Association of All-Ability Secondary Heads


includes 60 secondary school head teachers who are prepared to say publicly that the system in Kent needs to be changed.

6 pm

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that a head teacher in Kent has described the education system as evil. If parents support that view, why was the local authority elected on a policy of not changing the system?

Dr. Ladyman: Frankly, it was not. We have not engaged in that debate in any depth or with any feeling. I believe that if we were to have that debate and provide the people of Kent with the facts and the figures, the local authority would be instructed to change the education system.
I am prepared to put that to the test because my new clause does not ask the Government to take away parents' right to choose. I fought the general election on a policy of leaving the choice to parents. My new clause seeks only to make it a practical possibility for parents in my constituency to make that choice. I have said publicly that when we have that debate, I will not play a politician's role in it; I will leave it to parents. I will of course have a voice as a parent, but I will stay out of the debate if other politicians do the same and leave it to parents to make their choice on objective grounds.

Mr. Bercow: In developing his argument, will the hon. Gentleman concede that he is motivated, at least in part, by the risible failure of Mr. Martin Frey and his colleagues in Kent, who in this academic year have secured only 7,000 of the 45,000 signatures that they require to trigger a ballot, which has caused them to postpone the petition, although sadly not to cancel it?

Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is nearly correct. I shall come on to the reason why Mr. Martin Frey and his colleagues have managed to get only 7,000 signatures. Acquiring that number of signatures took a huge effort and was almost a miracle. Reaching their target of 45,000 signatures is a practical impossibility, given the rules under which they have to work. I shall come on to those rules later in my oration.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that those people have not abandoned their petition; they have simply postponed it, and they will carry it into next year. The problem that I fear as much as any other is that we will have this discussion year after year, that they will always fail to get the required number of signatures because of the practical impossibility of doing so, and that we shall never have certainty in our local system. I want rules that allow the schools to have the ballot and to get the debate out in the open so that a decision can be made, and then we will all be able to live with what follows.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In view of the comment made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), my hon. Friend might be interested to know that a paper from Buckinghamshire county council shows that when the council had a consultation on grammar schools, it got a total of 3,644

responses. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "risible" for a total that was twice as high and was reached by a private individual, not a public body.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend makes her point extremely effectively.
I turn now to the background of the new clause. If any hon. Members think that the 11-plus, which Kent calls the Kent test, is an objective test suitable for judging people's ability at 11 and determining the rest of their life, I point out that the test was changed a few years ago because not enough boys were passing and local grammar schools could not fill their boys' places. The head teacher of one of those schools came to me to lobby for the Kent test to be made easier for boys. The test had to be changed—a non-verbal reasoning test was included—and more boys are passing now. However, if the test is now fair, it must have been unfair beforehand, and generations of boys were tossed on to the educational scrap heap. If that was not the case, the test must be unfair now.

Mr. Purchase: Kent's experience of the difficulty of deciding boys' and girls' whole future at age 11 is greatly reflected in inner-city areas, such as mine, with multicultural communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is almost impossible to devise an objective, rational test on a one-size-fits-all basis?

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I say how much I agreed with his comments in the previous debate. I had fellow feeling for him on many of the issues that he dealt with.
I shall expand a little on what my hon. Friend has just said. Not only was the Kent test changed a few years ago to make it easier for boys, but Dover was not getting enough children through the test to fill all its grammar schools, so it introduced the Dover test. I do not know why, but fortunately for Dover, enough of its children are passing the Kent test this year to fill the town's grammar schools. However, the children who passed the Dover test are also entitled to grammar school places, and they are taking them, so people who would previously have gone to grammar schools in Dover are now being displaced to grammar schools in my constituency.
Who suffers in the end? It is the people whom the Conservative party is always championing—those who live in rural villages and towns and are furthest away from the grammar schools and therefore last on the list of the schools' admission criteria when they are ticking off which pupils they will take. This week, my desk is covered with letters from people who live in small, rural towns and villages in my constituency, such as Wingham and Minster, and who are being told that their child does not have a grammar school place because of the nonsense of the selective system which is being foisted on the whole area.

Mr. Brady: Given that the hon. Gentleman has painted a picture of chaos in school applications in his constituency, why does he believe that no one can find 20 per cent. of parents who are prepared to trigger a ballot?

Dr. Ladyman: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will deal with precisely that point in a moment because it is the thrust of the argument for considering change.
I turn now to an objective view of which system we should be following. We now have two sets of objective data about the relative merits of the comprehensive education system and the selective education system. York university identified intellectually equal cohorts of children based on their performance at age 14 in standard attainment tests and measured their progress as they went through grammar schools and comprehensive schools.
The researchers found that for the top 4 per cent. of children, there was no difference between grammar schools and comprehensives, but the remainder did better in comprehensive schools than in grammar schools. That would apply to over 80 per cent. of the children who attend grammar schools in my constituency at this moment. I can put my hand on my heart and say that none of those children would be worse off in a good comprehensive school, and 80 per cent. would get better results in a comprehensive.
If that was not enough, I have the evidence provided by the Secretary of State and by the Minister for Education and Employment in the other House, who in Lords Hansard on 15 March at column 1546 compared GCSE results for the top 24 per cent. of children in comprehensive schools with the top 24 per cent. in grammar schools, and found that the comprehensive pupils did significantly better. Objective data such as that need to be presented to parents so that they can compare selective education with the comprehensive system. We need to start that debate.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked why we did not succeed in getting the 45,000 signatures needed to initiate such a debate in Kent. In saying that, I have almost answered his question. Kent is taken as a huge conglomerate, and we must find 45,000 signatures—20 per cent. of all the eligible parents. It might be easier if just a petition of 45,000 parents was involved and we were given a fair crack at being able to get the data, but we must approach each school separately for the list of parents so that we can contact them. We are not allowed to collect petitions on schools premises, so we have to visit parents' homes one by one. We have to provide multiple pieces of information for every name on the petition.
Those who are experienced at collecting the signatures tell me that it takes 10 minutes for someone to fill in the form correctly even when that person has already been convinced, is being co-operative and is willing to sign. Before getting that far, people have to go to parents' houses and sit with them for 10 minutes, and probably have a cup of tea and a chat. They then have to visit the next house. All that has to be done in an academic year, and enough time has to be left to hold the debate and ballot. That is simply a practical impossibility.
With the greatest of respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have to concede that there has been an error of judgment. I share the blame for that error because I voted for it when the original legislation was framed. I put my hand up and say that I made the mistake as well; I did not spot how difficult the petitions would be. However, the petitions are intended for areas in which there is one grammar school in an otherwise comprehensive education system. They were designed for much smaller scale activities than those in Kent, where they are simply a practical impossibility.
I shall put some suggestions to my right hon. Friend, who shares many of my concerns about the problems that we face in Kent. We could make the rules for collecting the names on petitions much simpler, which would not require primary legislation, and would allow us to move forward. We could create a mechanism to ensure that the campaigning organisation was provided with the names of all the parents from the various schools so that its representatives did not have to visit every school separately to get all those names. We could make the logistics of collecting the petition more simple, by allowing many more names to be provided on one petition form.
We could consider how Kent is divided to find out whether it would be possible to hold the ballot at certain locations in Kent rather than across the whole county. That is not beyond the wit of man because Kent avoided going comprehensive in the first place by saying that it was a group of diverse communities that had to be treated separately, that the legislation could not be applied en masse and that schools had to be broken down and dealt with on their individual merits. Kent could say that for a couple of decades to avoid the current legislation. Why cannot we divide Kent into its communities? Some may doubt whether that can be done, but it has been done in Dover, where the Dover test serves local grammar schools.
6.15 pm
We could make the ballot a practical possibility by reducing the threshold for the petition to 1 per cent. That is the only part of my proposals that would require primary legislation, which is why new clause 9 deals with that aspect only. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend seriously to consider accepting new clause 9, which would allow us to try to achieve that much more realistic threshold. That would at least make it a practical possibility for us to campaign, and to hold the debate and the ballot. I am not talking about a political dogfight or suggesting that we should all get into our bunkers and start to close our eyes to the merits of good schools, the difficulties faced by bad schools and all other the problems that Opposition Members will certainly mention.
The subject must be debated properly, after which the decision could be taken and we could then begin to live with it in Kent. I would at least know that there was a fighting chance that I could offer my daughter the sort of education that I believe that she and all my other constituents deserve. I want the educational apartheid that exists in Kent to end and a decent, progressive comprehensive education system to be put in place so that we can start delivering results and dealing with the iniquities that face my county.

Mr. Bercow: I support new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and myself. When the time comes, my hon. Friends and I will certainly press it to a Division.
It may be helpful to explain at the outset that new clause 11 is the sequel to two important developments of the past few months, the first of which occurred on 14 March in the other place, when my noble Friend Baroness Blatch successfully pressed for the inclusion of


amendment No. 138A, which, if I remember rightly, subsequently became new clause 98. The second of the developments to which today's proceedings are a sequel occurred on 23 May in Committee, when new clause 98 was effectively struck down and deleted from the Bill at the request of those on the Treasury Bench.
New clause 11 represents the latest instalment in a long-running saga. My starting point is that grammar schools and the selective system, where it exists, are successful. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) advocated his case eloquently and with sincerity. I respect him for that, but I disagree with him, and he will not be surprised to learn that a copy of the Official Report containing his speech will shortly be winging its way to my long-standing friend, the admirable prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for South Thanet. I refer of course to Mr. Mark MacGregor, whom I confidently predict will replace the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Grammar schools are a success. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I regard them as beacons of excellence in our education system. They are renowned for their academic results, their sporting prowess, their cultural achievements, and, indeed, for the equipment for citizenship with which they have successfully provided their pupils for generations. However, the House need not take that from me; it can usefully take the same point from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Sadly, he is not in his place today, but he has contributed intelligently to the public debate on the subject.
On 12 September 1999, the right hon. Gentleman wisely declared that grammar schools were the outstanding success of public education in this country. Moreover, he was joined by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), who was emboldened during an Adjournment debated initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
For the benefit of the House, I quote what the hon. Gentleman said:
If our grammar schools are doing a good job, and in my patch they certainly are, let us leave well alone—"If they ain't broke, they don't need fixing.
I congratulated the hon. Gentleman at the time, and I reiterate those congratulations.
The Secretary of State seemed somewhat puzzled when, on an earlier set of amendments, we showed interest in the use of the expression, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." He was arguing that case in a different context, but he talked about the importance of reinforcing and supporting schools where they were doing well. Manifestly and pre-eminently, that same argument, and perhaps even the rhetoric that he deployed, are applicable to grammar schools.
It is worth noting that in that debate, the hon. Member for Wirral, South went on significantly and helpfully to add:
The perpetual threat of balloting is corrosive of the sense of security of the school, its staff and pupils.—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 371]

He was absolutely right and deserves the warm admiration of all fair-minded Members.
The evidence is clear.

Mr. Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident of the virtues of selection at 11, why is he afraid to let parents decide whether they want that selection through the ballot mechanism?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is an admirable Member of the House, but impatience is getting the better of him on this occasion. I hope that he will not hold it against me if I say that to that important point I shall in due course and with relish come, but that before I do, I want to say something about the success of grammar schools, from which I know he would not seek to divert me.
In 1999, 36 per cent. of the top 100 performing schools were grammar schools, even though they account for only 5 per cent. of the total number of secondary schools. In 1998, at GCSE level, eight of the top 10 performing local education authorities were selective education authorities. At A-level, in the same year—

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself and demonstrate what patience he can muster in the circumstances.
In 1998, the five top performing education authorities were all selective authorities. I refer to Bournemouth, to Buckinghamshire, to Southend, to Sutton and, perhaps above all, to Trafford, which is in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West—Trafford education authority came top. That happened despite the fact that selective LEAs account for only one fifth of all LEAs. We also know, as Northern Ireland Members can readily testify, of the tremendous academic achievements of the selective system in the Province; it is consistently between 30 and 50 per cent. better than the system in other parts of the UK.

Mr. Hopkins: Is it not obvious that those education authorities are high performing because of their social composition? It is nothing to do with the education systems that they have. Would they not do even better if they had a non-selective system, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) has pointed out?

Mr. Bercow: The answer is no. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. If he studies the evidence and the social composition and make-up of those areas, he can readily be reassured that the facts disprove his prejudice.

Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I will give way to the hon. Lady in due course if she is patient.
In debating the issue, we need to take account of one other important factor: the third report of the 1998–99 parliamentary Session by the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which was about highly able children. That report concluded that there was a significant weakness in the provision for highly able


children in one third of maintained primary schools and in 30 per cent. of maintained secondary schools. It went on to emphasise the need for different types of schools for different categories of highly able pupils. We should therefore be aware that, when we contemplate the possibility of abolishing grammar schools and the selective system, we do so in the face of a Select Committee report that contends that we are already doing too little for the most able children.

Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I will in due course.
Before the general election, what did the Labour party say on the subject of grammar schools? The House should be reminded of the words of the Secretary of State in his capacity as shadow Secretary of State on 7 February 1997. He declared that as far as grammar schools were concerned, a Labour Government posed no threat—I quote him precisely—
to their continuance or to their ethos or to their quality …
The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, wrote in a letter to the electors of Wirral during the Wirral, South by-election campaign:
A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee.
He went on to say, of the grammar schools that exist, "let them remain". "Standards, not structures", he said, adding that Labour was ditching outdated ideology in favour of the principle that what counts is what works.
Manifestly, grammar schools work. Ministers cannot conceivably object to the standards attained by those schools. It must logically follow that the objection is to their structure.

Dr. Ladyman: If grammar schools work, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the university of York data, which used normalised, equal cohorts of intellectually similar students, the only difference between them being the secondary education system that they followed, and manifestly showed that comprehensives did better still?

Mr. Bercow: First, I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's verdict. Secondly, I believe that I am right in saying that the basis on which the research was conducted was not made public at the time of the presentation of the paper. It was therefore impossible to conduct a proper intellectual debate about it. The author of the research was requested to produce the assumptions on which he was working. He refused to do so, in defiance of the normal rules of academic debate. If the hon. Gentleman on a suitable occasion wants to furnish those details to the House, as he could credibly and in more detail have done this afternoon, we could have a proper discussion about it. The evidence to which I have pointed demonstrates the continuing success of selective education authorities, including in areas where there is a substantial socio-economic mix.
I remain convinced of the merits of the selective system where it exists, although it is important to emphasise, contrary to what the Secretary of State implied earlier, that we are not advocating a selective blueprint throughout the UK. It might suit his book to allege that, but that is not the position of my hon. Friends, or the position that I take.

Dr. Starkey: After the debate, will the hon. Gentleman look at the performance statistics for schools in Milton

Keynes and the rest of Buckinghamshire when they were under Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council, which believed in selective education, and compare those with the results now, when Milton Keynes has an education authority that does not believe in selective education? He will find that Buckinghamshire county council allowed a huge disparity in standards to build up between Milton Keynes schools and schools elsewhere in Buckinghamshire, and that since the threat of selection has been removed from Milton Keynes and we have an education authority that believes in the education of all its children, standards in all schools in Milton Keynes have vastly improved. The improvement has been at a much higher level than any improvement in the rest of Buckinghamshire.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is wrong. The record of Buckinghamshire as a local education authority is outstanding. It is comparable with anywhere in the UK. The results improve consistently across the board. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that what the hon. Lady says is entirely symptomatic of the Labour party's tendency to decry the achievement of secondary modern and high schools. I bitterly resent the way in which they seek to denigrate the achievements of those schools. I champion not only the grammar schools in the Buckinghamshire local education authority area, but the upper schools, which do an admirable job.

Mr. David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I shall make a little progress with my argument and give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if time allows.
I mentioned Labour rhetoric before the election. What has happened since? Petition and ballot regulations have been put on the statute book and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that there are several cogent objections to those regulations. First, they constitute a one-way ratchet. They allow for the destruction of grammar schools, but they do not permit their creation. Moreover, grammar schools are the only category of schools to which the petitioning and balloting procedure is intended to apply. We are not to have petitions and ballots in relation to technology colleges, comprehensive schools, voluntary-aided schools, single-sex schools or independent schools. Grammar schools have been singled out for this treatment.
It has been emphasised many times, and I do so again, that there is scope within the petition procedure for fraud. I have said on a number of occasions—and it has not been effectively contradicted—that there is potential for cheating in the collection of signatures for the petitions. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I were not remotely reassured to be told by Electoral Reform Ballot Services last year:
The checking procedures are in accordance with the ballot regulations and the terms of our contract with the Department for Education and Employment.
Is that reassuring? No, it is not, when we know that the opportunity for validation of signatures is not what it should be.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? Is he or is he not making an allegation that the ballots are


unfair and that civil servants in my Department seek to undermine their validity? I want an answer to that question from the hon. Gentleman, who purports to want to be a Minister.

Mr. Bercow: I am happy to answer the Secretary of State. I did not say that the petitions or the ballots so far had been subject to fraud. I am happy to repeat, however, that the scope for fraud and impersonation does exist. The Secretary of State should not affect quite such shock or seem so affronted. The point has been raised with him several times, and we have had no satisfactory response from him or from the Minister for School Standards. I stand by what I have said. I have said it many times before and I shall continue saying it until the Secretary of State is prepared to reconsider the terms of the regulations and the contract with Electoral Reform Ballot Services.
The ballots ask a loaded question. It does not refer to grammar schools, but simply says, "Are you in favour of the school or schools listed introducing admission arrangements which admit children of all abilities?" That is manifestly a motherhood-and-apple-pie question which invites an affirmative answer. The electorate who are invited to answer the question are perversely chosen by the Government. My right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that it is frankly indefensible that the parents of grammar school pupils, who themselves have a direct vested and continuing interest in the outcome of such ballots, are disfranchised by the Government's regulations in many cases.
Considerable costs are involved in sweeping away the grammar schools and the selective system. In Kent, in bricks and mortar terms alone, the cost is estimated at £150 million. For the whole country, a figure of more than £500 million seems to err on the conservative side.

Mr. Blunkett: Is it not a paradox that the amount that Kent claims it would take to alter the system is £6 million higher than the sum that it would need, according to its asset management activity, to refurbish, renew and extend existing buildings to provide a satisfactory solution to its building and construction problems? It seems that Kent is prepared to spend £6 million more on reconfiguration than it would on reorganising its existing buildings to make them fit for current pupils.

Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State really does have a brass neck to make such a bogus debating point—to which I shall with relish reply. This is not a question of what Kent county council is prepared to spend; it is a matter of what Kent county council would be obliged to spend in order to secure a reconfiguration of the pattern of local education in that county. The Secretary of State himself has made it clear, albeit only sotto voce, that if parents choose to vote for the abolition of the existing system there will be a price tag, and the bill will have to be met at local level because the Secretary of State has no intention whatever of footing it. So it will mean crippling council tax rises for local residents—a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been reluctant to emphasise, but which I want to underline tonight.
Why does the Secretary of State not listen to the authoritative view of the director of education in my own county of Buckinghamshire, Mr. David McGahey,

who has repeatedly told him that the size and configuration of local grammar schools in Buckinghamshire mean that they would not readily lend themselves to conversion to comprehensive status? The schools are full almost to bursting, the scope for development on the green belt is minimal and the capital costs of reconstruction are prohibitive. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman consistently refusing to allow the facts to intrude upon his declared prejudices in any way, at any time and to any degree. The reality is that it would be costly—and in many cases impracticable—to secure the sort of conversion that many of his hon. Friends envisage.

Dr. Ladyman: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not deliberately try to mislead the House, so he must allow me to correct him on two points. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely correct to say that Kent county council has said that it needs to spend £146 million on the existing system of education—only barely less than it would cost to implement a new system. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman implied that parents of pupils at grammar schools in Kent would not get a vote. That is absolutely untrue. All parents with children at feeder schools and secondary schools would get a vote.

Mr. Bercow: Let me make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I am grateful to him for confirming that reconstruction would entail substantial additional costs. He has not denied that. Rather, he has acknowledged the truth of the charge that my hon. Friends and I have been making. Secondly, of course I am happy to confirm that in Kent, as he rightly pointed out, grammar school parents do have a vote. The burden of my criticism was directed at the procedure that applies to areas where there are stand-alone grammar schools or groups of grammar schools, where it is an undemocratic outrage that parents of children at grammar schools are not allowed to vote.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I shall give way just once more and then I must make some progress.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been most generous in giving way throughout the debate. Does he agree that it is equally an outrage that in the recent Ripon grammar school ballot, 25 per cent. of parents who were eligible to vote had children at private schools?

Mr. Bercow: I do not think that there is anything remotely outrageous about that. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to address the subject of Ripon. He can rest assured that I shall not resist that temptation for long, but first I shall focus briefly on the arguments about educational opportunity and the threat of discrimination against people from ethnic minorities, as that is a point of great importance to the Opposition.
Thirty per cent. of pupils at Henrietta Barnet grammar school in the London Borough of Barnet are from ethnic minorities. As the former head teacher, Jane de Swiet, pointed out many months ago, if that school were to become a comprehensive, its catchment area would be


based around Hampstead Garden Suburb, which has some of the most expensive housing anywhere in the United Kingdom. Such an arrangement would prevent substantial numbers of bright children from ethnic minorities and from financially modest backgrounds from benefiting from the education that is presently available to them.

Mr. Hopkins: rose—

Mr. Richard Allan: rose—

Mr. Bercow: I have given way a great deal. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain about the length of speeches. He cannot have it both ways, and I am being as fair as I can.
My second example is the Queen Elizabeth school for boys in the same borough, where 32 per cent. of the pupils speak English as a second language. Let us make no mistake about it; if those schools became comprehensives, their catchment areas would effectively deprive large numbers of bright children without financial means from benefiting from the sort of education that they currently receive.
A further objection—as if the objections were not manifold already—is that if grammar schools are scrapped on a significant scale, the effect will simply be to increase the size of the private sector. In common with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I strongly support the right of parents to spend their post-tax income as they wish, and that has always been the Conservative position. However, would not it be the cruellest irony if, in the year 2000 under a Labour Government who spout the mantra of support for the many and not the few, the private sector were to expand, not on account of its intrinsic merits but because of the destruction of the grammar schools? That would be wrong, it could not be defended, and we should not allow it to happen.
Under present legislation, the sword of Damocles hangs over the remaining 164 grammar schools year after year. There is provision for a moratorium on further ballots in the event of an unsuccessful ballot, such as that in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), but nothing prevents those who pursue a failed petition one year from embarking on another the next. That is wrong. It produces the lack of security that was rightly, eloquently and bravely bemoaned by the hon. Member for Wirral, South in last year's debate, and the Conservatives deplore that state of affairs.
Interestingly, we have heard little in this debate about what grammar schools themselves think—but we have bothered to discover that by conducting a survey of the 164 grammar school head teachers, two thirds of whom responded. Some 91.8 per cent. said that an end to selection would cause extreme disruption to local education, and 86.8 per cent. said that it would have serious implications for bright kids. Some 81.8 per cent. said that despite the controversy over the continuation of grammar schools and the insecurity that many of them

feel, demand for places at those institutions has continued to rise, and 74.5 per cent. said that their schools enjoy good relations with neighbouring secondary schools.

Mr. Beggs: Did any of the school principals who responded describe the system of selection as evil?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation, upon which I shall reflect. I respect the experience that he brings to these debates.
We wondered whether, following the Ripon ballot which was a triumph for the patient and persistent diplomacy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, the Government might have changed their stance. The signals have been confusing. First, in the immediate aftermath of that triumph of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, the Secretary of State said:
Arguments about selection are a past agenda. I am not hunting grammar schools.
However, we should beware of reading too much into such statements. At almost the same time, we discovered that the Secretary of State was cited in support of a press release issued by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), who is doing her best to whip up support for a petition and hostility to grammar schools in the borough of Trafford. As if that were not bad enough, we had the decision of the Standing Committee on 23 May—

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I would not wish him to miss an important detail. In the letter issued to all members of the Labour party in Trafford, not only is the Secretary of State claimed to oppose grammar schools and to seek their abolition, but so is the Prime Minister, which is entirely contrary to the promises that he made in Wirral, South shortly before the general election.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is simply pointing out that the Prime Minister is a chameleon. His convictions on a Monday differ from those he holds on a Wednesday, which differ from those he holds on a Friday. He is all over the place and subscribes to no fixed principles or philosophy.
We know that several Labour Members—the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and, apparently, for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—want to up the ante and increase the pressure for the destruction of grammar schools. This year alone has seen eight petitions circulating in various parts of the country.

Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: No. I am coming to a conclusion and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in this on-going debate—at the start of the last century—that great socialist philosopher Tawney said that it was important to have the maximum possible diversity of type among secondary schools. Tony Crosland, in language that I could not repeat on the Floor of the House without severe rebuke, declared that if it was the last thing he did, he would destroy every


grammar school in England and Wales. Those positions have honesty in common. They are straightforward and defensible positions. The Government's position—seeking the abolition of grammar schools through the back door—is duplicitous and mean-minded, and I strongly deplore it.
6.45 pm
The regulations are spiteful and vindictive. They set parent against parent, governor against governor, teacher against teacher and even, potentially, pupil against pupil. Thousands of hours have been wasted on the petitions and the ballot campaigns, and no doubt the Government would like to see even more time wasted. The Conservatives will fight, fight and fight again to champion those great institutions and to vanquish those who would destroy them.

Dr. Starkey: I do not support new clause 11, and I shall cite the example of Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire. In that regard, I am grateful to someone who passed on to me the useful agenda and report of the meeting of Buckinghamshire county council on 17 February 1995, headed "A grammar school for Milton Keynes? Outcome of public consultations".
The new clause shows the limits of the Conservatives' commitment to parental choice and democracy. They are keen on local communities expressing their view only when it coincides with the Conservatives' view, and I shall give the example of what happened when the Conservatives were in power in Buckinghamshire. Hon. Members will be aware that Milton Keynes is a special place. It is a growing community and still in the process of an extensive school building programme. During the 1990s, when the area was under Buckinghamshire county council control, it was proposed that the next new secondary school should be a grammar school, not a comprehensive. Not unnaturally, that proposal involved heated public debate over some considerable time. The proposed grammar school would have been highly selective and likely to have taken only one in 20 local children. It would also have taken substantial funding away from all the existing secondary schools in Milton Keynes.
The county council was involved in public consultations and, in January 1995, the results of one of them was revealed to the council. The parental consultation demonstrated that 59 per cent. were against the grammar school proposal and 39 per cent. were in favour. The proposal that the new school should be a grammar school was opposed by all the other existing secondary schools and primary schools which responded. The proposal was also opposed by the then Milton Keynes borough council and by three out of the four parish councils that responded, not to mention the Roman Catholic diocese, which had invested in a secondary school in Milton Keynes on the understanding that it would be part of a comprehensive system.
Despite those overwhelming indications of public feeling, Buckinghamshire county council decided to ignore that response and to make the new school a grammar school. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—who was not active in Buckinghamshire at the time—made a point about the danger of repeated

ballots, but Buckinghamshire county council held three ballots on the proposals because it did not like the answers it got the first and second time. Unfortunately for the council, the third ballot got the same answer—a majority of parents were not in favour of a grammar school. The Conservatives on Buckinghamshire county council were not against repeated ballots. They simply hoped that, by going on and on, they might change the public's view. They did not. When they failed to change the view of the public, they simply ignored it.

Mr. Brady: Is not the process that the hon. Lady is describing somewhat analogous to what the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) is seeking to do with his amendments? Recognising that he cannot get the 20 per cent. threshold, he wants to cut it to 1 per cent.

Dr. Starkey: My hon. Friend is asking about the threshold of a ballot, and I agree that it has been set impossibly high so that it is not possible to get a public consultation. Buckinghamshire county council held a consultation, ignored the results and then had repeated consultation. During this time, the secondary school—which should have gone ahead—was kept on ice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and I have been well aware of the consequences of that decision for the whole school system in Milton Keynes, where a much needed secondary school was held up for a considerable time because of the determination of Buckinghamshire county council to foist a selective system on the people of Milton Keynes, despite their repeatedly expressed view that they did not want it.
Fortunately, the attempt by Buckinghamshire county council to force the system on people was frustrated by the determined efforts of the Milton Keynes council, which is now the education authority with responsibility for schools. Thanks to the council and the Government, we now have a new comprehensive school that is meeting the needs of pupils in the part of Milton Keynes that is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
In my intervention on the hon. Member for Buckingham, I said that the consequence for the parents and children of Milton Keynes of the removal, once and for all, of the sterile debate about selection is that we now have an education authority that has concentrated on the needs of all the children and schools of Milton Keynes. In the short time it has been in control, the authority has overseen a substantial improvement in standards across the whole ability range: markedly so for boys. There has been a substantial improvement in the level of achievement in comprehensive schools. I am confident that that improvement in standards will continue.
That vindicates the expressed view of the people of Milton Keynes that what they wanted were excellent schools for all their children and not the distorted debate that Buckinghamshire county council was attempting to push on them. The council's action exemplifies the view—one that is held, certainly, by the hon. Member for Buckingham—that the way to improve education is to push resources into a small number of schools for which we select the best pupils. Not unnaturally, those schools will turn out good results. It is as if we were to select on the basis of the height of the children and then be surprised that, in selective schools, the average height of pupils was higher than elsewhere.
The amendment to which the hon. Member for Buckingham spoke is a blatant attempt to ensure that parental choice cannot be operated to express a view that selective education is divisive and does not provide a good education for all children. I do not believe that it even provides good education for those children who are often put into narrowly academic schools where they are unable to fulfil their full potential across a range of activities and where they are channelled into a narrow sort of education.

Mr. David Curry: This has been a wide-ranging debate which, in many respects, has concerned the very principles of selective as against comprehensive education. I am unique in the House, in that there has been a ballot in my constituency. I wish to speak from experience, rather than from a theoretical position.
I say to the Secretary of State that Ripon college—the city school, as it was; formerly a secondary modern—will, in the next academic year, benefit from its technology status. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that award, which was well merited. He will be interested and pleased to know that, recently, the school received two awards for excellence in teaching, demonstrating the commitment of the school to continue to improve standards. He will be pleased to know also that the co-operation with the grammar school—promised at the time of the ballot—is being pursued. We intend that that partnership—formed in the heat of battle, if I can put it in those slightly melodramatic terms—will continue now that, for the moment, the battle is over. I intend to make sure that those important promises are kept.
I wish to refer to the circumstances in which the ballot took place and how it took place, as they illustrate the difficulties of a Bill that the Government are defending but which has been so roundly attacked by Labour Members today. In my constituency, the electorate was incomplete and, frankly, arbitrary. First, the electorate was confined to feeder schools which had sent five children to the grammar school over the previous three years. However, if the junior school in question had a separate infants department, children at the infants school did not count towards the ballot. If the school was integrated, the children did count. Parents would find themselves in identical situations in different junior schools in Ripon, but some were disfranchised.
Secondly, the parents of both secondary schools were denied the franchise. I would never suggest that only the parents of those children at the grammar school should have the vote. It is legitimate that the parents of the children at all the secondary schools should have the vote. However, they did not. We had the arbitrary situation that a parent in Ripon with a child in the last year at one of the feeder primary schools had a vote. However, a parent with a child in the first year of either the college or the grammar school—where there is an expectation that that child will spend between five and seven years at the school, right through to university entrance—was denied the vote. I regard that as an arbitrary definition of the electorate.
The problem with the Bill is that the question is incomplete. The question does not ask the electorate, however it is defined, to vote on a particular scheme of reorganisation. The electorate and parents are canny, and

want to know what they are voting for. They want to know where the beef is. They do not want just a theoretical debate about education.
When North Yorkshire education authority—which behaved entirely properly throughout this matter—pointed out to parents that a vote for change did not necessarily mean that a single comprehensive school would be created in Ripon, the parents said that that meant that they were voting for the unknown. They were not voting for a particular proposal whose meaning they understood. It was not clear what the organisation would entail.
Technically, the ballot was about admissions to the grammar school, and the only question on the ballot paper was a technical one. The question that that opened up—what sort of education we would get if there were a vote for change—was not answered. That was left to the local authority. When the authority put forward its answer in the event of a yes result, the electorate was not consulted on its practical shape.
I reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): the solution in Ripon is only temporary. In five years, those concerned can come back to the matter. It is difficult to manage and run a school knowing that that possibility is constantly looming.
If they want a definitive solution, the Government could adopt reasonable procedures that would satisfy their own Back Benchers. First, they should require every local authority with selective schools to set out a scheme of reorganisation—except where ballots have taken place already, as the principle of double jeopardy should be maintained. Those local authorities should set out not the principles of reorganisation but how they would reorganise their schools on a comprehensive basis. That would mean that parents knew what they were voting for.
7 pm
The Government should then issue an undertaking that, if the scheme necessitated further capital expenditure, they would provide it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, it is clear that funding would not be available for capital expenditure consequent on reorganisation. If the Government want to give parents a real choice, on the famous level playing field, they must demonstrate that parents will not, by their vote, penalise themselves or their children in terms of funding.
Finally, there would be a ballot of eligible parents. For stand-alone schools, parents of all pupils at both secondary and primary schools would participate. Where the present whole-LEA system of education obtains, the ballot would be much wider and would therefore be held broadly in accordance with the principles that have been set out. However, when that decision has been taken, that would be the end of the process. There would be none of the constant returning to the old argument that has been described already in this debate.
In this Chamber, hon. Members have made it clear that they are fed up with the argument about structure and are more interested in performance, and I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has to say in that regard. He has stated that what matters in schools is individual performance, and he has stressed the importance of head teachers. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman has said, with authority, about the sheer difficulty of running some inner-city schools, where teachers have to combine


teaching with being police officers and social workers. Their role in loco parentis is the greater because, to be blunt, children often come from deeply inadequate backgrounds.
The House should focus on those difficulties, so it is important that a term be set to the current debate. In that way, we could take the matter forward: parents would be able to make a definitive choice, and schools would finally know where they stood.
I believe that the Government need to be got off the hook over this problem. They have proposed a scheme with the wonderful advantage that both sides of the argument believe that the ballot is rigged. That is quite an achievement, and it happened with the ballot in my constituency.
I must pay tribute to the Secretary of State again, as he gave a judicious and balanced response when he was called upon to adjudicate the complaints. No reasonable person could have objected to his decision. However, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) showed that he thinks that the scheme does not work effectively. He excoriated the scheme, before announcing—somewhat curiously—that he intended to take no part in any ballot in his constituency that might result.

Dr. Ladyman: May I clarify that I did not say that I would not vote in the ballot? I simply said that I would not use my position as a politician to make the ballot a political one. In fact, I rather admired the slightly detached approach to the ballot process displayed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would not want to make the ballot party political, I would certainly agree, as I sought to exclude that possibility from the ballot in my constituency. However, politics goes far beyond parties, and this ballot process is intensely political. It is one of those few experiments in which ballot papers were delivered to doorsteps. Even then, the turnout of only 70 per cent. could have tempted me to an entirely unauthorised digression on local government election turnouts, on which I do not intend to embark in this debate.
As I said, the Government need to be let off the hook with regard to the scheme. In the next academic year, as we approach a general election, I look forward to watching Ministers and Labour activists campaigning through Daily Mail territory and encouraging parents to hold ballots on the future of their grammar schools. I have a feeling that the word may go out, quietly, that the Government are not too anxious to incite enemy troops at this particular time.
I understand that the Government wanted to find a solution to this problem, but their solution involves a formula that is so provisional and so unsatisfactory that virtually no one thinks it sustainable. I suspect that the Secretary of State will argue otherwise, and I said earlier that I am in a relatively comfortable position, as the ballot in my constituency has already been held. However, there is a case for a close examination of the system that has been set up, so that parents can have a genuine choice.
The Government must ensure that the extent of the franchise should not be open to dispute and that the question is honestly and fully put. A definitive result

would mean that everyone would know where they stood, and we would all be able to move on and deal with a much more pressing agenda.

Mr. Chaytor: I rise to oppose new clause 11, moved by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and to support new clause 9, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman).
Interestingly, the hon. Member for Buckingham spoke for precisely 30 minutes about the selective system, but he focused entirely on grammar schools. Why did he ignore the 75 per cent. of children who fail the test at 11 and are deselected? The hon. Gentleman should answer that question when he speaks on the matter again, as should all Conservative Members. They try to define selection entirely in terms of grammar schools, even though most children in the selective system are not in grammar schools. The Conservative party must address that issue.
The hon. Member for Buckingham must answer another question. If he were to have children—God forbid, some might say—would he exercise his freedom of choice and send them to a secondary modern school? I look forward to his answer.

Mr. Bercow: The happy event to which the hon. Gentleman alludes has not yet occurred, and I accept that it might well not do so. I shall have to wait for events to take their natural course. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I should be very happy for children of mine to go to a secondary high school in a number of the selective areas to which I have referred.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong: I celebrated the achievements of the grammar but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will know, I pointed also to the success of the high schools.
There it is: a straight question from one politician gets a straight answer in the affirmative from another.

Mr. Chaytor: I look forward to the proof of that. If the hon. Gentleman were to act as he says he would, it would be a record. I think that he would be the only Opposition Member who had ever chosen to send a child to a secondary modern school. It would be a remarkable event, and I will hold him to his promise.
The hon. Member for Buckingham based his argument on the assumption that the evidence is that grammar schools perform better than other schools. He dismissed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet regarding the recent research by York university, and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) about what happened in Milton Keynes. He insisted that grammar schools perform better.
Unfortunately, even if that was true at some point in the past, it is true no longer. I refer the hon. Member for Buckingham to the written answer that I received on 25 May from my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. It showed that the top 25 per cent. of children in grammar schools and secondary modern schools differed in level of achievement by only about 5 percentage points.
The figures show that 100 per cent. of that top 25 per cent. in comprehensive schools obtained five GCSE passes at A to C grades. That may not be the ideal


benchmark, but it is the one normally used. By contrast, 96.4 per cent. of children in that ability range in selective schools achieved that success.
Our comprehensive system has developed and improved over the years. The figures show that children in the top 25 per cent. in the ability range perform better in comprehensive schools than in selective schools.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman say where those top performing comprehensive schools are—in the most affluent areas, or the poorest ones?

Mr. Chaytor: The figures that I gave apply to comprehensive schools across the country that happen to have children from the top 25 per cent. of the ability range. Their geographical location is irrelevant. Conservative Members, newspaper editors and television pundits talk about the failure of comprehensive schools in inner cities, but it must be remembered that there is not a single comprehensive school in any inner city in the United Kingdom. Every school in the inner city has been selected once, twice, or even three or four times. There is no such thing as a genuinely comprehensive school in our inner cities because, in the vast majority of cases, those schools have been so heavily creamed that even though their curriculum may be available to children of all ability, their intake does not reflect the full span of the ability range.

Mr. Hopkins: On the previous point, does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with the selective system is that children who do not pass the 11-plus examination, or whatever one might call it, become alienated from education; therefore, across the system as a whole, such children perform less well on average? When children are in comprehensive schools, they are encouraged rather than discouraged.

Mr. Chaytor: That is absolutely right. If we contrast areas that have successively reorganised along comprehensive lines with those that have retained selection, comparing areas like for like in terms of their socio-economic status, that will prove to be the case.
I see the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) shaking his head and I am glad that he is doing so, as it conveniently brings me to my next argument. He made the sweeping statement that he represents the best performing local authority in the north-west—Trafford, which is an authority that I know reasonably well. I am not familiar with the performance of all the local authorities in that area, but I am familiar with that of authorities in Greater Manchester, where our constituencies are located.
If we compare selective Trafford with comprehensive Bury, on whatever indicator that the hon. Gentleman chooses to provide, we will find that there is, at worst, no difference and, in most cases, a significant improvement in the schools in Bury. Let us consider, for example, the performance at key stage 2 in primary schools: Bury's comprehensive primary schools outperform the primary schools in Trafford. If we take performance at key stage 4, or the number of children who obtain five A to Cs at GCSE, the most recent results show a negligible difference: 55 per cent. in Bury and 55 point something per cent. in Trafford. Consider the number of children

who get a single GCSE. This is the most interesting result, as it is where the bulk of the population is at, and the proportion of children who get A to Gs in comprehensive Bury vastly exceeds those achieving that score in selective Trafford.
The most significant figure is that for the participation rate beyond 16—it is what this Bill is about—where selective Trafford performs not only far worse than comprehensive Bury, but far worse than many other districts in Greater Manchester and throughout the north-west—districts that do not have the enormous social advantages of Trafford.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has performed a service to the House in his careful dissection of the weaknesses of the selective system in Kent and the impact that that has on the development of the potential of children, of the divisive nature of the system as it impacts on communities, and of its sheer inefficiency. He also performed a service by drawing attention to some aspects of the existing regulations for the ballots in selective areas that must be reconsidered. He advanced a significant argument in favour of one sort of change to the existing ballot. Other changes need to be reconsidered. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) also argued constructively about the way in which the system operates, in particular in the area that he represents.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the time—I know that he will keep the matter under consideration—to reconsider the way in which the ballot for selective systems operates. It is not a question of opposing selection out of dogma or ideology. My objection to selection by ability at 11—there are other forms, which I do not oppose—is entirely based on the evidence and the results. The fact is that across the board, like for like, the performance of children in comprehensive schools and systems is far better than that of children in selective schools and systems.

Mr. Brady: I shall be brief, but some of the arguments that have been advanced in the debate, in particular those in the previous contribution from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), need to be challenged. It would be deeply boring for the House if the debate degenerated into a ding-dong between Bury and Trafford and who has the best results, so I will not go too far down that road—but the hon. Gentleman should look at the performance in Trafford between key stages 2 and 3.
An article in The Times Educational Supplement last year demonstrated that the authority had one of the best improvements between those stages in the country. That is because something happens between primary school level—

Mr. Chaytor: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happens between key stages 2 and 3: a large number of children leave Trafford at 11 to avoid the secondary modern schools and an equally large number come in at 11 from surrounding affluent districts to take advantage of what they perceive to be the value of Trafford's grammar schools.

Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman can pursue his fictions if he wishes. There is a traffic in and out of


Trafford, not least across the boundary from the Manchester local authority area, which is, of course, Labour controlled, and is less affluent than the areas in my constituency to which children come. They come across the boundary not because of the affluence of their parental background, but because they are seeking a better standard of education, and they are fortunate to be able to obtain it.
The improvement between key stages 2 and 3, which is one of the best in the country, is because of the quality of the schools—not merely the grammar schools, but the high schools too. I have talked often in the House about the quality of the secondary modern high schools in my constituency and the Secretary of State has acknowledged it. Ashton-on-Mersey is a beacon school. Children in my constituency are not consigned to failure if they do not go to a grammar school; they go to a beacon school. Now, they may also go to a technology college, as we have one coming on stream. It is a question of the quality of the system as a whole, and it delivers.
The hon. Member for Bury, North can say what he likes about performance in Bury. I very much hope that the schools there are excellent and I congratulate him on the results that they achieve. However, he cannot say that the borough of Trafford is universally affluent. Let us compare like for like. Trafford has 18.9 per cent. free school meals. A comparable authority, such as Kirklees, which has about 18.5 per cent., comes 78th in the league table of local education authority performance, whereas Trafford always comes towards the top.
We can dispute these matters day in and day out and we have had numerous opportunities in this Parliament to do so. The crucial question is not whether hon. Members believe one set of statistics or another for the performance of selective schools; it is whether parents believe in the performance of the selective system. That is why I was dumbfounded and disappointed to hear the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) propose his amendment, the basis of which was that the Government had introduced a rigged balloting system in which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the question is inappropriate in many areas where there are stand-alone grammar schools as the electorate is manifestly unfair. I do not object if Labour Members have a passionate, ideological objection to grammar school and selective education: in that case, they are right to state that view. However, if after a debate that has lasted 20 years in Kent, as it has in Trafford, they still cannot persuade the 20 per cent. of parents necessary to sign their petition to trigger a ballot, it is not acceptable for them to come back to the House and say that they cannot do it under the rules introduced two years ago so please may they change the rules because they have failed.
I will not compare the hon. Member for South Thanet, who seems to be a perfectly charming man in most respects, with President Mugabe in any other respect, but the hon. Gentleman's disregard for the democratic process in this matter is worthy of the situation with President Mugabe. People are saying, "We did not win. If we do not win under the current electoral process, we will change it and do it differently. May we please have new rules?" Surely not.
I happen to believe that even if the hon. Gentleman were to have his way and the Secretary of State were to buckle to pressure from the Benches behind him and make it easier to secure ballots on the future of selective education where it exists, we would find in Trafford, in the Wirral, in Buckingham and in Kent—as we did in Ripon, where it has been tried—that the vast majority of parents have the good sense to recognise good schools and to want to defend them, and that they put in practice what the Secretary of State puts into words. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Mr. Blunkett: I shall be brief. I want to place on the record once and for all that Labour Members think that the 11-plus is an anachronism. It will be an even greater anachronism when we have raised standards in primary schools sufficiently to make a nonsense of selecting 25 per cent. of children on the basis of a test of their mathematics and English ability, with or without verbal or non-verbal reasoning tests.
The 11-plus will be an anachronism because actually it is possible to provide diversity in the secondary school system. both within and across schools, in a way that develops the talents of the gifted, provides support for those with special needs and allows those who are good at a particular subject to flourish but does not penalise those who, at a particular age and stage of education, have not managed to jump through a particular hoop.
If we can manage that, we shall have a world-class education system that prepares people for the future—one that demands not that we have an elite composed of a small number of people, educated to a high level in schools that are separated out, but that the majority of people are able to develop their talents to the full and contribute to a knowledge economy that can compete with the best in the world. Everywhere else, there is an end to dogma. Everywhere I go, whether in Europe or in China, which I visited two weeks ago, there is a desire—a commitment—to provide excellence for everyone, to develop children's talents and to enable children to flourish.
Had I had my time again over the last three years, I would have picked up what the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) alluded to tonight, so let me put that on the record. First, I believe that the coming together of the grammar school and the college, as it now is, is an extremely good development: the combining of the work of the governing bodies and the ability to interchange children across the schools is an excellent development. Where grammar schools and secondary modern schools are close enough together to make that a possibility I, in the time that is left to me as Secretary of State, will do everything I can to encourage them to combine, to show once and for all what a nonsense it was to separate out children at 11.
If we can achieve that in those areas, we can do a service to local people because the practice of separating out children at 11 and the argument that has taken place tonight illustrate the fact that, in this country, we cling to the past. We invent a structure and a system and cling to it as though that were the determinant of success; whereas the teaching in the school, the nurturing of the individual and the tailoring of education to meet that individual's needs are what is required. Therefore, I take the challenge by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon head on. I do not agree with him about the detail of the ballot in


relation to giving a vote to the parents of those who have already entered secondary school, because in this case the matter to be decided is not the abolition of a school but a change in the admissions process.
There was a problem in the introduction of comprehensive education, in that we allowed schools that excelled—that had excellence—to deteriorate. I have one in my constituency. It was the only grammar school in the north of Sheffield, with a population of 250,000. It was for boys. It deteriorated; it fell apart. It was never and has not been since, until very recently, a comprehensive school. It is pulling itself up by its bootstraps. I use that illustration only to show that we can learn lessons from the past, but the issue for us all tonight is to move forward to the future.
I found many of the other lines of argument that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pursued very interesting. I say to him, and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), that we should seriously consider whether there are anomalies that should be examined. I shall return to that subject. The interesting argument about Buckinghamshire was important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) put it very well. I thought that the intellectual argument that the predecessor of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) used to make was very entertaining. The trouble is that intellectual entertainment is irrelevant to the needs of individual children.
The excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet was from the heart. It was about the dilemma of parents and the consequences for children. We should take very seriously the heartfelt cry that he made, as a parent as well as a politician representing the area. He spoke of the silly nonsense of a Dover test versus a Kent test—but with the channel tunnel, I was wondering whether there might be a Calais test, which would override both.
My hon. Friend made interesting arguments about the possibility of dissecting the county, as a previous Conservative-controlled Kent county council did when it suited it. I believe that it will be difficult to respond positively on that theme. The idea is intellectually possible, but looks very difficult in practice, despite the anomaly of the Dover test and the nonsense that results from it, which my hon. Friend rightly outlined. It is even more impossible to change the 20 per cent. threshold.
It is equally impossible to conceive of starting a process of allowing parents to ballot, holding one ballot in one area and then deciding to abandon ballots altogether, which is what the Conservatives are proposing. As Baroness Blackstone rightly put it, that would be rather like holding a by-election to determine a general election. I am sure that, after the Romsey by-election, the Liberal Democrats would consider that to be a wonderful idea. Perhaps the Opposition would not find it quite as attractive, although the idea has points in its favour.

Mr. Purchase: Tottenham.

Mr. Blunkett: On the strength of the arguments that are being made, now that we have had the Tottenham by-election we need not bother with a general election. We

obviously do, and I will stand by that. It is nonsense to suggest that, having embarked on a system, we abandon it—not least because it removes all parental choice. Neither parents nor anyone else could ever again change the system of selection and the admissions process in those schools that are currently designated grammar schools. That would be an intellectual and practical nonsense.
However, there are clearly technical difficulties in areas where a ballot is held throughout an authority. Such problems were experienced in Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet outlined. I think that I am right in saying that 45,959 votes were required—an enormous challenge, by anyone's calculations.
In areas such as Kent and Trafford, where a ballot process is still in existence with the current threshold, anomalies have been highlighted. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned some of them. I am prepared to take a look at those detailed technical requirements as they relate to the development of the ballot process. However, what I cannot do is change the threshold for the ballot. I am not prepared to prevent parents having the opportunity to ballot.
7.30 pm
We embarked on the process five years ago—it is five years to the week since we published the document outlining it, and indicated that we would give parents the right to choose. Five years later, we are still debating those issues, but the ballots will go ahead. The debate is important; it matters deeply to children. It matters to my colleagues in the House and to many people outside. We should always treat the debate with care and try to respond where we can.
However, we must be honest with one another; none of us can allow the issue of selection and grammar schools to divert us and to dislocate the process in which we are engaged—raising standards for all children and ensuring that we give to the many what was, in the past, available only to the few. We are not returning to the debates of the past; we shall not allow the media or anyone else to divert us from the course we have set. We shall give children in our schools the decent education they deserve. That is why we should reject the new clause.

Dr. Ladyman: By leave of the House, I will answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As my right hon. and hon. Friends are flooding into the Chamber, it is clear to me that, if I were to push new clause 9 to a vote, it would be carried. However, I must accept that the Conservatives and their sympathisers in the House of Lords would certainly throw out the new clause—and the Bill with it. The Bill deals with important issues.
Given that I want no more and no less than for parents in my constituency to be able to hold a ballot in which the facts can be considered objectively, free from party politicking, and to make their decision about the future of selective education, my best chance of achieving that is to take the Secretary of State's kind offer to the bank. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS: RETENTION OF SELECTIVE ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS

() In the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

(a) in section 104 (designation of grammar schools), omit subsection (4)
(b) omit sections 105 to 108 (procedure for ballots to determine retention or discontinuance of selective admission arrangements) and
(c) in section 109 (proposals by governing body to and selective admission arrangements) omit subsections (3)(b) and (4).'.—[Mr. Bercow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 330.

Division No. 239]
[7.32 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beggs, Roy
Horam, John


Bercow, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Blunt, Crispin
Hunter, Andrew


Body, Sir Richard
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Johnson Smith Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Brady, Graham
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Leigh, Edward


Burns, Simon
Letwin, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clappison, James
Lidington, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Luff, Peter


Collins, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Madel, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maginnis, Ken


Evans, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Faber, David
Maples, John


Fabricant, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Flight, Howard
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Dr Liam
Nicholls, Patrick


Fraser, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Gale, Roger
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paterson, Owen


Gray, James
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Greenway, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Grieve, Dominic
Robathan, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence


Hague, Rt Hon William
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Hammond, Philip
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)





Ruffley, David
Thompson, William


St Aubyn, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard
Walter, Robert


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Waterson, Nigel


Soames, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Yeo, Tim


Syms, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. John Randall and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Baker, Norman
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ballard, Jackie
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony
Cooper, Yvette


Barron, Kevin
Corston, Jean


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Crausby, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cummings, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Berry, Roger
Darvill, Keith


Best, Harold
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dean, Mrs Janet


Borrow, David
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Donohoe, Brian H


Brake, Tom
Dowd, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burnett, John
Edwards, Huw


Burstow, Paul
Efford, Clive



Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ennis, Jeff



Ennis, Jeff


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Feam, Ronnie


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Field, Rt Hon Frank



Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline


Cann, Jamie
Follett, Barbara


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Chaytor, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chidgey, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil






Gibson, Dr Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Gidley, Sandra
McCabe, Steve


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Dr Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Goggins, Paul
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gunnell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hanson, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Moffatt, Laura


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moore, Michael


Hood, Jimmy
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountfort, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Milk (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pollard, Kerry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pound, Stephen


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Raynsford, Nick


Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lepper, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Leslie, Christopher
Rendel, David


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan





Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Salter, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Sanders, Adrian
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Skinner, Dennis
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vaz, Keith



Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Watts, David


Soley, Clive
Webb, Steve


Southworth, Ms Helen
White, Brian


Squire, Ms Rachel
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Willis, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winnick, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woodward, Shaun


Stunell, Andrew
Woolas, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 135

SEX EDUCATION

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 67, leave out lines 2 to 29 and insert—


(2) In section 403 (sex education: manner of provision) in subsection (1) for the words "and the value of family life" substitute " the value of family life and sexual health".
(3) After section 403 insert—


403A (1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that the following general objectives are met when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools.

(2) The general objectives are that the pupils—

(a) learn about the nature of marriage as the key building block of society and its importance for family life and for the bringing up of children;
(b) learn about the significance of stability in family relationships;
(c) learn to respect themselves and others;
(d) are protected from teaching and materials which a reasonable person would regard as inappropriate having regard to—

(i) whether information is accurate and objective;
(ii) the language and images used;
(iii) the age of the pupils and
(iv) the provisions of section 403, this section and section 403B.




(3) When sex education is given to pupils who are in the third or fourth key stage or over compulsory school age, the general objectives referred to in subsection (1) are to include the following additional objectives.
(4) The additional objectives are that the pupils—

(a) learn to understand human sexuality;
(b) learn the reasons for delaying sexual activity and the benefits to be gained from such delay;
(c) learn about obtaining appropriate advice on sexual health.

(5) The Secretary of State's guidance must also be designed to secure that sex education given to registered pupils at maintained schools contribute to

(a) promoting the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of the pupils and of society;
(b) preparing the pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.

(6) No guidance under subsection (1) shall be issued or substantially revised unless a draft of the guidance has been laid in draft before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) Local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers must, in discharging their functions under section 403, have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance.
(8) In this section 'maintained school' includes a community or foundation special school established in a hospital.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 73, in page 67, line 11, after first "are", insert—

'(a) taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children; and
(b)'.

Mr. Boswell: If I am brief in moving the amendment, that is not because this is not an important matter. It is important to those on both Front Benches and to the political parties and it attracts much interest among Back Benchers. I am conscious of the timetable for the whole architecture of the Bill and of the fact that, after four hours, we have not even begun to consider education for those aged between 16 and 19. There are also many others important issues to debate.
I bear in mind two factors. The first is that this issue has been fully—almost exhaustively—debated in another place. I suspect that it may well be debated again, because the clause has already been amended since it left the Lords. Secondly, there is a proper and honoured place for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to speak to his own amendment. We have considerable sympathy for his amendment, as is shown by the rather unusual fact that the whole Opposition Front-Bench team have attached their names to it.
In fact, I am surprised that my hon. Friend's amendment did not attract other signatories. As he will no doubt tell the House shortly, it is couched entirely in terms that are drawn from the Government's publication "Supporting Families: A consultation document". I do not understand why Ministers have not signed the amendment. The phrase
marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children
is a direct quotation from the Government's document. What are Ministers up to in not associating themselves with the words that they themselves have used?
In the interests of winning consensus wherever that is possible, I am minded to advise my hon. Friends to desist from pressing amendment No. 83—obviously, we shall reserve our position until we have heard the debate—but to persist with their support for my hon. Friend's amendment. We shall do that conscious of the fact that matters might ultimately be resolved either in another place or in discussions between the two Houses on what they are prepared to accept.
I touch on these issues not to steal my hon. Friend's thunder but to explain the architecture of what I hope will be a not unduly prolonged debate. I shall now address my remarks to amendment No. 83, which more assiduous Members who read the Bill at an earlier stage may recognise, because it is framed in exactly the terms of the clause bequeathed to us by another place on its consideration of the Bill after amendment. It was returned to us and was then filleted by Government amendments in Committee.
It may be convenient for the House if I explain three things that the amendment is not. First, it is not to be construed as any signal, encouragement or advertisement to any person in a school, whether a pupil or his or her teacher, to have any part whatever in any discrimination or bullying in respect of the individual child. We believe strongly—we respect the views of those who take a different view—that it is possible to assert values, including those in connection with marriage, without stigmatising persons who are not married, persons whose parents are not married or persons who are in some other sort of relationship.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the amendment in the same thoughtful and considered way in which he dealt with such matters in Committee. In view of the argument that he is advancing and his comments about not stigmatising—and drawing attention to concerns about bullying—why have the Opposition not seen fit to include in the amendment any reference to those issues?

Mr. Boswell: I was anticipating that question. In terms of the amendment that we inherited from another place, and in stating the general objectives of instruction in sex education, paragraph (c) refers to the need for pupils to learn to respect themselves and others. That is a sufficient peg on which to hang the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and I share.
We believe that it is possible to assert values. Some of us have Christian values and others may have other values, other faiths or no faith. To say that is not to suggest that those who do not share our views and values are not worthy of our respect. A school needs to wrestle with these issues at all times, and its teachers must have regard to them. The purpose behind the amendment is to provide for guidelines that are set in statute, rather than merely evanescent guidance from the Secretary of State for the time about these sensitive issues.
Secondly, the amendments have nothing to do with issues that arise from the criminal law or from the specific issue of the homosexual age of consent, on which Conservative Members, along with Labour Members, were free to take different views, and did so.
The amendment bears no relation to any gender preference. However, it is a matter of fact, which I observed in Committee, that, when considering issues of


marriage, some gay people take the view that they would wish to associate themselves with the institution of marriage by extending the provision of civil marriage to cover unions between gay people. I say that not in a light or debating sense but to record that the amendment has nothing to do specifically with gay issues—and nor has it to do with the criminal law.
My third point in what I might call path clearing is that the amendment has nothing directly to do with the operation of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. That will be discussed in a different context. If the Government are intending—[Interruption.] I am not quite sure why the Under-Secretary is chuckling. We have an understanding that the Government intend to legislate on section 28.
In a sense, as my noble Friend Baroness Young adverted in another place, it is difficult to disentangle the two issues. However, there is no direct link. Perhaps the link has become a little clearer in relation to the recent decision of the Scottish Parliament to delete the section 28 provisions, but that was accompanied by its parallel decision to include a statement on the importance of marriage. It is reasonable to argue that the case for statements of the sort that we have set out in the amendment will be intensified if and when the Government decide to come clean and persist in their apparent intention to delete section 28.
If they choose to make that deletion, they do so in the face of public opinion of the kind enshrined in the recent non-governmental Scottish referendum, the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches and the view of leaders of other faiths.

Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no connection between section 28 and what he is proposing, because the section has not been relevant in terms of school sex education policies, which are set by parents, teachers and governors, and have been for some time? What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is a departure in terms of guidance for schools. That is not affected by whether section 28 is or is not on the statute book.

Mr. Boswell: Although I have been at some pains not to debate section 28, its application goes wider. One of the difficulties in the clause as we received it from the Committee is that it excludes—Christian interests would welcome this—the confusing reference to duties on a local education authority. This is about—we think that this is proper, and evidently the Government do too—whether the sex education policy of schools should be determined by schools, subject to guidelines which may or may not be statutory. The amendment relates to the nature of statutory guidelines.
The amendment has an interesting and perhaps somewhat erratic genesis. First, there are resonances with the Government's general objectives, which were enshrined in an amendment for debate on Third Reading in another place. For example, it referred to the importance of learning about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the rearing of children. It referred also to learning about the significance of marriage and stable relationships. Those were regarded as key building blocks of community and society.
Many Members will be aware of the history of the debate at that stage in another place. The amendment of my noble Friend Baroness Young was preferred by their lordships, who delivered the Bill to us accordingly. Hon. Members will perhaps have studied those debates.
It is interesting that the Government, not having got their own way on their own draft, indicated in a reversing statement by Baroness Blackstone that they would consider the Government's future position. In both respects, although this is not always the case, the Government have honoured their undertaking. They have taken away all positive references in the statutory guidelines to the nature of marriage. They have produced an alternative, which appears in the Bill as clause 135, which we seek to amend.
There is an interesting feature to the Government's second thoughts. It is an open secret that they started with a heavy influence from the Christian Church, and the Church of England's board of education in particular, to produce some value-laden statements to put in statute and to inform the guidelines. However, the Government have moved away from that. They have only produced—although it is not unworthy and I am not suggesting that we should quarrel with it—a minimal filter for the activities that schools may sanction in terms of sex education.
8 pm
In one sense, it might be appropriate—in another, it might be inappropriate, given the history of the century—to describe the Government's attitude to legislation as smacking of the 18th century: they appear to be saying, rather wearily, that all they, as a Government, can do is to prevent pupils from being done harm through access to inappropriate materials. In no sense am I suggesting that it is not important to prevent access to such materials or to ensure that materials are appropriate to the age and culture of the individuals involved, but, in a slightly uneasy progress, the Government have removed any positive duties—any meat—from the guidelines, other than that which appears in non-statutory guidance.

Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend consider that the position is now worse than it was before? Had the Government not been through the debate in another place, where the issues were thoroughly fought out, what they have done might be thought the result of an oversight, or of a different approach. In fact, the Government, in a direct way, have decided that they are not prepared to support a provision that Christian Churches of all sorts and many informed people want to be introduced. Because of that, the Government need to explain their position far more clearly than they have hitherto.

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend makes a most valuable point. It would have been one thing had the Government not started down the route of introducing an extraneous matter into the Bill, which makes provision for post-16 education, but it is quite another for the Government, having started on the basis that it was a good idea to tell people what they ought to teach, now to say that, because they did not get their way in another place, they have decided not to say anything at all about it. That casts doubt on the strength of their feeling on the matter.

Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the thinking behind his


amendment? As I understand it, it differs significantly from the amendment tabled by Baroness Young. Have Conservative Front Benchers been convinced by the arguments against some aspects of the noble Lady's amendment?

Mr. Boswell: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I perceive a close equivalence between the two amendments. I might have overlooked something, but I think that, in amendment No. 83, we have tabled the same amendment as Baroness Young tabled. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has masterfully summarised our case in his much shorter amendment No. 73.
We have proposed some positive general objectives and attempted to address some of the issues. We welcome the Government's desire to protect pupils from harm or access to inappropriate materials, but it is mealy-mouthed of them to say that they believe in values—or did at one stage—but to remove them once challenged. It reminds me of the politician who said, "Here are the principles: if you don't like them, we'll take them away and find another set."
Some of us have occasionally been critical of our Church. The Church of England Board of Education has been straightforward in its approach. A letter was sent to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch by a member of that body, Mr. Locke, who states:
the importance of marriage and the non-equivalence of other relationships are at the heart of where the Board of Education stands.
That is a traditional view, which many Conservative Members respect. I think that it is where we should stand.
It is easy for the issue to be over-emphasised and for it to give rise to ill-considered talk. We are considering an important subject: the guidance that should be given to schools in framing their sex education policy. Within that, there is a separate issue of whether the guidance should appear and be altered from time to time in non-statutory form, or whether it should be enshrined in legislation. Not for the first time—sometimes to the embarrassment of previous Conservative Governments—their lordships are right. They have talked of principles and the importance of marriage and stability in relationships, and have done so in a way that reflects more closely than the Government's proposals the views of the general public, of the Christian Churches and of responsible people who engage in these sensitive matters.
I think that the Lords got it right. The Government have backed away from the challenge at the first sign of difficulty, or out of petulance resulting from their experiences in another place. They have come up with a small and inadequate alternative; our version is better. Either in the formulation proposed in amendment No. 83, or in the shorter and more succinct formulation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, the House deserves to pass back to their lordships a firm endorsement of marriage and traditional values.

Mr. Gummer: On listening to the debate, the question that most people will ask is why on earth the Government are resisting the amendments, given that they represent the views of most of those who have considered the issues over a long period. The Government said that they would

listen carefully to those outside this place who want to raise the standards of the nation and, in particular, encourage future generations to have the stability that marriage alone brings. The Government claimed in the other place that they have no quarrel with the desire to put marriage at the centre of sex education—indeed, the Government's own amendment was designed to achieve precisely that end. Therefore, Ministers face today the difficult task of explaining their actions to the public, who must be mystified as to why the Government want us not to put marriage at the centre of sex education. Had we not broached the subject, it would not be so serious a situation; but we have, so for the Government not to accept either of the amendments we offer or not to make the amendment that they proposed in another place says to the people of this country that the Government do not believe that marriage is at the heart of sensible sex education.
I am one who has been fortunate to have had a long and happy marriage. Therefore, I am among the first to insist that we should in no way be willing to stigmatise those who, for all sorts of reasons, have not had that kind fortune, and certainly not their children. However, I am also aware of the enormous advantage given to a new generation of growing up knowing, as they go to sleep at night, that the next morning their parents will be there and that their parents have committed themselves, outside the having of children, to live with each other until death do them part. That is a crucial element of stability—the one thing that any couple ought to try to give to the next generation, for without it they bring into the world a life for which their commitment is not properly sufficient. We are the only animal that has the choice of producing children knowingly. The one thing that we can properly give to the next generation is the knowledge that we intend for their sake, if for no other, to live together and provide the stability that young people growing up so desperately need.
All we ask in the amendment is that that perfectly proper view, which has been the view in this country for hundreds of years, which on any test is the view of the majority of people in this country, and which we understand to be the view of the Government, should be enshrined in legislation.
If the Government refuse to accept such a reasonable amendment, they will stand accused not just by their political opponents, but by the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations of not believing that marriage should be at the heart of sex education. I can think of few things more damaging than sex education without marriage at its heart, for it would then be merely the mechanistic explanation of that which many already know.
If we are to challenge the Government, which I do in the most polite way that I can, I must ask the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to answer a simple question when she replies. If she is not willing to accept the amendment, will she tell the House that she does not believe that marriage should be at the heart of sex education in schools? Unless she is willing to say that, she must accept the amendment.
If the hon. Lady does not accept the amendment, she must have the courage of her convictions and say, "Whatever the Church of England says, whatever the Catholic Church says, whatever most people in this


country say, I do not believe that marriage is at the heart of sensible sex education." Let her have that courage. I shall not agree with her. I shall find that view offensive, in the deepest sense, for it offends the next generation and it removes from them the thing that all of us have a duty to give.
I have no time for those who are not prepared to commit themselves to each other, but are prepared to produce children outside that commitment. I believe that to be a very wrong way of approaching their responsibility, but if the Minister takes that view, let her say so, and we will know. However, if she refuses to say so, the Government will be not only wrong, but extremely cowardly.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) who, as ever on such issues, has given the House a lucid, eloquent, courteous and incisive view on an extremely important matter facing the nation.
I am somewhat surprised to find my amendment being endorsed by those on my Front Bench and to find myself, so to speak, in pole position on the grid, although I am delighted that that is the case and that my hon. Friends have seen fit to promote the amendment that I tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made clear, the wording that I used was taken straight from the Government's own document entitled "Supporting Families—a consultation document" which was published a couple of years ago.
Paragraph 4.3 of that document states:
The Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships. This does not mean trying to make people marry, or criticising or penalising people who choose not to. We do not believe that Government should interfere in people's lives in that way. But we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.
The elision of the two points made in that paragraph forms the basis of my amendment.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and, again, for his amendment. Will he draw the attention of the House specifically to the remark in the paragraph that he quoted, which may not have received sufficient attention so far? The Government conceded there that that view is shared by the majority of people in this country, yet they now oppose our amendment and say that they are prepared to go against the majority view, for reasons that they have not yet adequately stated.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal made it plain that that was the view of the majority of the people of the country, and that it is bizarre that the Government are bent on resisting such a modest amendment, which is entirely in accordance with the Government's philosophy, as stated by no less a person than the Home Secretary.
The debate is part of a two-sided coin. The Government announced their plans to abolish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988—the provision that prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality as "a pretended family relationship." They know that that is deeply unpopular.
In Scotland, week after week, the Daily Record—not a Tory newspaper—has been hammering the Government and supporting Cardinal Winning and Brian Souter in the courageous stand that they have taken, so demonstrating that they were in touch with the people of Scotland and the Government were wholly out of touch. That was shown by the opinion poll commissioned by Brian Souter. I pay tribute to the courage of those people, one a cleric and the other a business man, for the stand that they have taken. They have set a great example to the rest of the nation.
In the face of that hostility in Scotland and elsewhere, the Government introduced an amendment on Third Reading of the Bill, late in the proceedings in another place. The amendment, in the name of Baroness Blackstone, required the Secretary of State to issue guidance. The guidance was published on 16 March, a week before the debate in another place. The guidance was extensive, running to 28 pages.
The Government tried to get the bishops on side, but failed to reckon with the outstanding and formidable eloquence and determination of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Young, together with the right reverend Bishop of Winchester, who supported my right hon. and noble Friend and who, I know, feels passionately about the issue. They persuaded the other place of the merits of their argument and won the day with an amendment to the Government's proposal, writing into the Bill that marriage is
the key building block of society.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 2000; Vol. 611, c. 436.]
In Committee in this place, the Government removed Baroness Blackstone's new clause as amended by my right hon. and noble Friend in the other place, and substituted the present wording of clause 135. All the general objectives set out in the Bill as it left the other place are gone, save for the ambiguous requirement for pupils to be protected from
teaching and materials which are inappropriate—
however that is to be defined. Instead, governing bodies and heads are to rely on the Secretary of State's guidance.
It is significant that those in another place were prepared to insert an amendment that was specific, even if it was not quite in the terms that many of us wanted, yet in this place all those provisions have been removed, save for the reference to inappropriate material.
Nothing better illustrates the confusion and prevarication at the heart of the present Government than their policy on sexual matters. On the one hand, the Home Secretary sets out graphically the Government's support for the institution of marriage. Then there is the prevarication in the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and we have the Government promoting the Bill to reduce the age of consent for buggery from 18 to 16. Where is the joined-up government in all of that? It is a very confused message that the Government are sending.
I remind the House that at the Ayr by-election the Prime Minister, having been shown some posters produced by campaigning groups whipping up homosexual propaganda, said:
I've just seen the posters here in Scotland. I don't think I've ever seen a more astonishing campaign in all my born days. People are being told their children will have to play—what was it?—


homosexual role playing in schools. No wonder parents are concerned. It's nonsense. No child is going to be given gay sex lessons in school. Not under this Government now. Not ever.
Those were the Prime Minister's words, yet we have today a publication by Health Promotion Service Avon—the House has already heard me refer to some—

Dr. Harris: A teachers' pack.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is what is being given out to teachers. In lesson five, part II, "Challenging homophobia", a method to be promoted is described as follows:
This session can be performed as a role play, written up and fed back to large groups, or responded to like an 'Agony Aunt'.
The Prime Minister said that this would not happen under this Government. Here we have it, down in Avon, at the taxpayer's expense.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
At the taxpayer's expense, that kind of literature is being produced—literature that the Prime Minister himself said this Government would not be party to. Case study D says:
Michael is 15 and his boyfriend wants him to have sex. He really wants to but he is nervous. Michael knows he should use a condom but doesn't know where to go for help. What should he do?
For goodness' sake! This child is under 16, even before the law is changed from 18 to 16. What on earth are the Government doing allowing that kind of publication to go out with taxpayers' money?

Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my understanding of the position, which is that no material is ever used in schools unless it is agreed to by the teachers, the governors and the head teacher? The governors include parents. It is a very specific responsibility. So it does not matter what anyone produces as printed material for the hon. Gentleman to read out, for his enjoyment, if not for everyone else's. What matters is what schools decide on the ground. The Government do not decide sex education policy in schools; it is decided by governors, parents and teachers.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I understand that it is material produced for schools and available to them. The Government may well believe that it is inappropriate material. My point is that the Prime Minister himself suggested that such material was not being produced under his Government. It is being produced, and that is the material that is available to schools should they wish to use it.
In a letter to my noble Friend, Lord Ashbourne, my predecessor as chairman of the Lords and Commons family and child protection group, the Home Secretary wrote on 26 July last year:
The evidence is that marriage better provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and this framework is the most reliable for raising children.
The House may agree that that is pretty well a reflection of the language in the document "Supporting Families". But the guidance issued by the Secretary of State on

16 March refers repeatedly to marriage and stable relationships in the same context. Not only does that repeated juxtaposition of marriage and stable relationships imply that they are equally valid, which they are not, but, as my noble Friend Baroness Young pointed out in another place, there is nothing that prevents homosexual unions from being defined as stable relationships.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the substance of his amendment. In view of his remarks, does he believe that all relationships that are not of the marriage kind are unreliable frameworks for raising children?

Mr. Howarth: I would agree with the Home Secretary—

Mr. Marsden: That is not the question.

Mr. Howarth: The Home Secretary says that the best relationship is that of marriage. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal say that that is not to stigmatise those who are in different relationships. We are being asked to give some leadership. It is my view that the Bill does not give the necessary leadership, because the fact is that the family in Britain is in crisis. We have all seen it at our surgeries and advice centres. I doubt that there is an hon. Member present who in the last month at his or her surgery or advice centre has not had evidence of that. I shall not quote from a constituency case that came up last Saturday, partly because it is simply too distressing.
I should like to quote what the noble Lord Stoddart of Swindon, a Labour peer, said in another place on 23 March:
compulsory sex education has not done much to stabilise, let alone promote, marriages Ω
There is more promiscuity, less sexual morality, less marriage, more divorce, more single mothers, more under-16 pregnancies and more child pregnancies Ω all those matters were supposed to have been dealt with by the various Acts that have been passed. Clearly, they are not delivering the goods.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 2000; Vol. 611, c.463.]
I entirely concur with what the noble Lord said.
I and my hon. Friends are not proposing the amendments simply out of a belief in the moral case for marriage, although I subscribe to it. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, and I hasten to acknowledge the work that CARE, Christian Action Research and Education, and the Christian Institute have done to fight this battle.
I agree with the Home Secretary: the evidence to which he referred indeed shows that marriage confers benefits all round. Studies have consistently shown that marriage generally, not always, leads to a healthier and happier life and that children benefit from that. Like my right hon. Friend, having passed the 25-year mark, I can bear testimony to the long-suffering wife I have and to some splendid and dutiful children. I am under no illusion that all marriages work out. I believe, nevertheless, that marriage is, as the Home Secretary says, the better framework for bringing up children.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that stable relationships, which I suppose one could describe in other terms as cohabiting, are no substitute for marriage. I am


sorry to say that there is plenty of evidence that that is so. For example, the British household panel survey a few years ago found that cohabitant couples are almost six times as likely to split up as those who are married. The Economic and Social Research Council found that even where there are children, half of cohabiting couples part within 10 years, compared with just one in eight of married parents. One cannot ignore those facts.
As recently as just a couple of months ago, the Office for National Statistics published a document, "Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain", which contained some startling information. I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I shall simply give the flavour of it. It shows the prevalence of mental disorders by family type, age and sex. Let us take conduct disorders in boys aged 11 to 15. For those in married households, the percentage with a disorder was 5.7. In cohabiting households, the figure was 17 per cent., three times as great. For those in households where there was just a single parent, the figure was 17.6 per cent. Against that factual background, we have a duty to the children of this country to ensure that the laws and regulations regarding sex education take into account the facts of what is happening.
The Government should stop trying to appeal to every interest group for fear of offending one or other of them. It was indefensible to give the advice that appeared in the guidelines that were published in March. They stated:
there should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation.
That means that the Government are neutral on the matter. They cannot and should not be neutral. Instead, they should recognise the serious crisis that faces family life in Britain today, and give proper, unambiguous, Christian, moral guidance to our young people to enable them to live more fulfilled lives than perhaps many of their parents have been able to live in recent years.
8.30 pm
If the Government accept the amendment, they will at least no longer be perceived to be speaking with forked tongue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has already said, the amendment has, for the Minister's comfort, been lifted straight from the Government's document. They could therefore happily seize ownership of it. I am not proud. They can own it, and show that they are being entirely consistent. However, if the Government fail to support the amendment, they will show that neither is there joined-up government, nor are the Government honest in their language in the "Supporting Families" document.
I end with the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal posed to the Minister. Does she believe that marriage should be at the heart of sex education? If not, she must tell the House. The parents and children of this country should know.

Mr. Julian Brazier: It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and their cogent and compelling arguments.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, I shall focus on rearing children and the message that we should propagate in schools. I should like to add one more study

to the compelling list that he cited. Twelve years ago, a study was undertaken in America, not by some right-wing think tank or a religious organisation, but by the United States Department of Health. I am grateful to the Institute of Economic Affairs for publishing it. It examined juvenile delinquency among young people in all major family types. Married couples who had remained together constituted one category; three other categories included single parents and cohabiting couples.
The study examined five different income categories. In debating the best way in which to bring up children, the crucial argument that tends to be used by those promoting the other side is the importance of poverty. They claim that we leave out that factor, and that because poverty is more frequently associated with alternative life styles, one would expect to find more juvenile delinquency and more of a whole range of other problems, such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred, among those who lived such life styles.
The study was astonishing because it showed that the poorest category of children, from families who earned less than $10,000 a year in 1988—a level of subsistence that would be regarded as intolerable by many in this country—had a significantly lower level of juvenile delinquency than the average in the three other categories. I looked a little further down the table and discovered that in the poorest category, the married couples who had stayed together and reared their children had fewer children guilty of juvenile delinquency than the wealthiest group—those who earned more than $50,000 a year.
My hon. Friend mentioned the contrast between married couples and cohabiting couples, as revealed in a British study. The most recent study that I have seen was undertaken three years ago. The critical difference between it and those that my hon. Friend cited was that it pulled out cohabiting couples who subsequently got married. If, for 1997, we compare those who were married in 1987 with those who were cohabiting in 1987 and did not subsequently get married, the success rate of the relationship was 81 per cent. in the former category and 15 per cent. in the latter.
The case is overwhelming.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if such overwhelming evidence were offered to the Government in any other circumstances, they would be bound to accept it? Yet when we offer the evidence that my hon. Friend described, it is not acceptable because the Government are not prepared to stand out against those for whom such evidence is embarrassing.

Mr. Brazier: I hope that my right hon. Friend is wrong, but I fear that he is right.
The case is overwhelming. I was once privileged to take part in a debate against the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) at the Oxford Union. Participants in the debate included a rising generation of young people, some of whom have now found their way into the House. I was encouraged by the fact that the motion defending the traditional family was passed heavily. The point that needs making, tonight as then, is that our arguments are not about stigmatisation but about aspiration.
One of my closest and dearest friends was brought up by an extremely violent alcoholic father. Sadly, most classrooms today include a child whose father is a violent


alcoholic. Does that mean that we should not teach children that it is wrong to beat children? Many children are brought up with a parent who is hooked on a drug; does that mean that we should not teach children that they should not take drugs? Of course not. Almost every family in the land is affected by, for example, divorce or illegitimacy. However, that means neither that we should have a conspiracy of silence nor that we should stigmatise anyone. We should aspire to the best. That is why the amendment is so important.

Dr. Harris: I want to ask the Minister three questions from the Back Benches. However, before I do that, I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) a rhetorical question. Does he believe that it is the job of a Minister, rather than parents and the Church, to tell the nation that sex outside marriage is sinful? He should learn from his party that when Ministers start moralising, they are in dangerous waters. Moralising is for people, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who have connections to the Church, and for parents. It is not the Government's job to tell adults what they should or should not do in their bedrooms.

Mr. Gummer: In answer to that rhetorical question, I simply said that I wanted the Minister to support the words of the Home Secretary. I merely said that, like him, I believed that marriage provided greater stability than any other form of rearing children. If the Minister is not prepared to say that, she must say that she does not believe that it is true. That is all I asked.

Dr. Harris: The tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks suggested that sex outside marriage was less than wholesome and that it was the Government's job to preach that idea to the nation. I question that.
I also question the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It is hard to know where to begin. I shall not make a strong attempt because there were so many logical flaws in some of his analyses. The idea that he could prove causal relationships through statistics is nonsense. The idea that the possession of a marriage certificate tucked away in a top drawer is some sort of insurance that will prevent a relationship from breaking up is nonsense. The idea that one can identify people who cohabit as equivalent in the sample to people who marry is ridiculous. Many people choose not to get married, and live together instead because they fear that their relationship may not last. It is therefore not a huge surprise if those relationships break up, regardless of whether children are involved.
The statistics that the hon. Gentleman cited did not relate wholly to children. He talked about mental illness affecting young people, as if we did not know that the biggest association is with deprivation and the stresses of family life. We know that the families of single parents, some of whom have tried marriage and are divorced, suffer far more stress and deprivation, and therefore have more associated poor health outcomes, than people who are not in that category. That is the obvious and correct interpretation of the data. The hon. Gentleman's misinterpretation does the debate no good at all.
The hon. Gentleman has the peculiar idea that one cannot ask young people to put themselves in the position of victims of intolerance because that is bizarre.

I remember that when I was taught about the importance of not being racist, I was told to imagine being in the position of someone who was a victim of such persecution. That is a suitable mode of teaching, and certainly not inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman asked what advice people should give to a 15-year-old boy considering sexual behaviour. If the question concerned a 15-year-girl, would he say that that advice should not be available? He is right to lament the huge increase in, and the high incidence of, pregnancies among the under-16s. However, if he is not prepared for information to be given to young people in school to protect them, I despair of what sort of society his way would bring.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: No, I want to finish.
I commend the Government's preference for the Bill's current wording over that originally proposed. We should compliment them for coming to that view; indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) did so in Committee.
I have three brief questions for the Minister about the guidance referred to in the Bill. Will there be time for a parliamentary debate on the detail of the guidance, which is pretty fundamental? The Minister will be aware that many people are concerned not only about what we have already heard about, but about the fact that the Bill does not do enough to protect young people from the risks of early sex, and, indeed, other sexual activity. Given that primary schools have no statutory duty to offer sex education, is the Minister certain that the guidelines will implement her stated wish in the guidance that children should be taught about puberty before it happens, including the 10 per cent. of girls who do not know about menstruation before they have their first period—a dreadful situation, by all accounts.
The guidance talks about giving information along those lines in the transition year between primary and secondary school. I am sure that the Minister's colleagues in the Department of Health, Government health advisers, paediatricians and GPs will tell her that the phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" would apply to a school that, despite her intentions, decided to delay giving that information until that late stage.
Finally, everyone in the House is concerned about the incidence of child sex abuse. Indeed, I sport a green full-stop badge every day to bear witness to that. I believe that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children shares my view that children are not reporting abuse, and certainly not reporting it early enough, because they do not recognise what is going on, as they are not taught early enough in school which parts of their bodies are private and not to be interfered with by other people. That is a result of the failure of sex education to address the needs of very young children in age-appropriate language. I question whether the guidance, which contains a lot of good research by the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancy, will achieve the aims that Health Ministers and many other Ministers desire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): It is fair to say that the debate about sex and relationship education, which has been going on for some time, has generally been conducted with great passion and belief on both sides. It is also fair to say that there was a great deal of considered, sensitive and thoughtful debate, especially in Committee, when the issues were covered in some depth and when, as hon. Members have said, the Government reversed the amendments introduced in another place. However, I fear that the amendments tabled this evening and certain aspects of the tone of our debate will not build on the positive, sensible approach adopted in Committee. For that reason, I shall ask my hon. Friends to join me in opposing the amendments.
8.45 pm
I shall begin with amendment No. 83, which would reinstate much of the amendment that Baroness Young introduced in another place, the provisions of which were removed in Committee. It ignores the importance of balance, which must be at the centre of guidance on sex education. No one says that marriage is not an ideal, about which children should be taught in schools, but it would be wrong to stigmatise children whose parents are not married.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith: No I will not, because we are short of time, and I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
In particular, because of its silence on the importance of understanding difference, amendment No. 83 would fail to tackle homophobic bullying in our schools. Moreover, it includes a vague notion of a reasonable person making judgments about what constitutes inappropriate teaching and learning, which the Government believe risks creating confusion and uncertainty for our schools.
We have always made it clear that we are committed to supporting marriage as the basis for family life. We believe that pupils should learn about the nature of marriage and its importance to family life and bringing up children. That is set out very clearly in our draft sex and relationship education guidance, which we issued for consultation in March. In fact, this Government put marriage into the curriculum for the first time, under the personal, social and health education framework issued last autumn. That framework underpins the guidance and work on sex and relationship education.
At key stage 2, the framework states that pupils should be taught to be aware of different types of relationship, including marriage, as well as those between friends and families. At key stage 3, pupils should be taught about the role and importance of marriage in family relationships. At key stage 4, they should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.
Our guidance will be supported by our national healthy school standard, which every school is expected to sign up to during the next few years, and which contains as a criterion of success the requirement for schools to teach in line with the Secretary of State's guidance. That constitutes much more positive and practical action than has ever been taken before.
Our aim is to improve the sex education that our children receive, which in the past has rightly been criticised for concentrating too much on the mechanics of sex and ignoring the importance of respect, stability in relationships and marriage. Why did the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was a member of the previous Government, not do more to improve the quality of sex and relationship education, as this Government are doing?
We recognise that many children are raised in loving and stable relationships outside marriage. We must not allow those children to be stigmatised in our schools; nor should we stigmatise children from single parent families. The hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made much of the Government consultation document, "Supporting Families", which they quoted correctly, but selectively. That document recognises that there are strong, mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. That is the balance that the Government have always made clear, but it is not made clear in the amendments that the Opposition have tabled.
The document is referred to specifically in our sex and relationship education guidance. Selective quoting does no justice to the debate, or to improving sex and relationship education for our children. Our guidance presents a careful and considered balance; amendment No. 83 would fail to provide that balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made the important point that that amendment would fail to ensure that children are taught about respecting difference and about preventing and removing prejudice. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Daventry to claim that that is Conservative Members' aim. If that is their aim, why did their colleagues not support the amendment that the Government tabled in the Lords in which it was made explicit? Without that safeguard, schools cannot tackle discrimination and teach tolerance. The amendment would specifically remove the chapter on recognising diversity and removing prejudice.
We believe that bullying on whatever grounds—be it based on race, appearance or sexual orientation—is wrong and should be checked. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will know of young men and women whose lives have been made a misery by such bullying. We recognise that schools need to be able to deal with it, and the amendment will not provide the necessary safeguard.
The issue of protecting children from inappropriate teaching and materials has emerged as a key concern, although I do not believe that the sensationalism of some of the comments by the hon. Member for Aldershot did it due credit. The amendment made in Committee provides clarity and certainty. It gives the Secretary of State a duty to issue guidance, so that pupils are protected from teaching and materials that are inappropriate to their age and religious and cultural background. It gives statutory force to guidance that addresses this central issue and extends protection to materials issued by health authorities, which were not previously covered.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Why is the Minister so afraid of putting the case for marriage in the Bill? She said that


the Bill covered inappropriate materials, so why does it not put the case for marriage? After all, paragraph 4.8 of "Supporting Families" says:
For all these reasons, it makes sense for the Government to do what it can to strengthen marriage.
Is the Minister saying that this is one area in which the Government are not prepared to help strengthen marriage?

Jacqui Smith: As I have already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, not only have the Government already done a great deal to ensure that the importance of marriage and relationships is included within the personal, social and health education framework and within sex and relationship education, but we are also addressing issues involving inappropriate materials. However, we are not prepared to accept amendment No.73, as it would undermine the careful, considered balance and consensus that we have achieved, which Committee members supported. It would require children to be taught that marriage alone is the most reliable framework for raising children.
I do not need to repeat what I said earlier, but I would like to reinforce three key points. First, our draft guidance sets out that children should be taught about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children. Secondly, we cannot accept an amendment that does not recognise the realities of the society and the communities that we represent.
As I said earlier, many children today grow up in loving supportive families outside marriage. Those children should not be stigmatised in our schools. Hon. Members will be aware that our guidance and our work on sex and relationship education stems from a recommendation in the teenage pregnancy report, and the need to address the high rate of teenage pregnancy in this country. We take that responsibility seriously.
Thirdly, our guidance will be grounded in the broad consensus across society about how children can be given effective sex and relationship education in schools. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised specific questions that I do not have time to answer this evening, but I can tell him that we consulted teachers, parents and other organisations. They all supported the guidance, particularly teachers. Indeed, 73 per cent. of teachers who responded to consultation believed that our guidance was right.
In conclusion, we need to focus on what is right to ensure that children receive an education relevant to their needs, that parents can have certainty that their children are receiving an appropriate and balanced education, and that schools, teachers and governors can be supported to have confidence in the education that they provide. The Government have built that balance and consensus, and it would be destroyed by the amendments, so I ask my hon. Friends to oppose them.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 73, in page 67, line 11, after first "are", insert—

'(a) taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children; and
(b)'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 303.

Division No. 240]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Loughton, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Luff, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Beggs, Roy
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Bercow, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
McLoughlin, Patrick


Blunt, Crispin
Madel, Sir David


Body, Sir Richard
Maginnis, Ken


Boswell, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maples, John


Brady, Graham
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Brazier, Julian
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
May Mrs Theresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Moss, Malcolm


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Nicnolls, Patrick


Burns, Simon
Norman Archie


Chope, Christopher
o,Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Clappison, James
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
paice James


 (Rushcliffe)
Paterson, Owen


Collins; Tim
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Prior, David


Davies Quentin (Grantham)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen



Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Flight Howard
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fox,Dr Liam
St Aubyn, Nick


Fraser, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gale Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Thompson, William


Hayes, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Viggers, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Waterson, Nigel


Horam, John
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hunter, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Willetts, David


Key, Robert
Wilshire, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Yeo, Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. Stephen Day and


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Geoffrey


Lidington, David
Clifton-Brown.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ainger, Nick
Denham, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dismore, Andrew


Allan, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Edwards, Huw


Atkins, Charlotte
Efford, Clive


Ballard, Jackie
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Banks, Tony
Ennis, Jeff


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bayley, Hugh
Fearn, Ronnie


Beard, Nigel
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Bermingham, Gerald
Follett, Barbara


Berry, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Best, Harold
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Betts, Clive
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blackman, Liz
Foulkes, George


Blizzard, Bob
Gardiner, Barry


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Borrow, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Browne, Desmond
Gidley, Sandra


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burnett, John
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hain, Peter


Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cotter, Brian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Cranston, Ross
Hutton, John


Crausby, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rammell, Bill


Keetch, Paul
Raynsford, Nick


Kemp, Fraser
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kidney, David
Rooney, Terry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruane, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruddock, Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lammy, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Sanders, Adrian


Lepper, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Leslie, Christopher
Sawford, Phil


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Shipley, Ms Debra


Livsey, Richard
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Singh, Marsha


Lock, David
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McCabe, Steve



Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McNulty, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


MacShane, Denis
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWilliam, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Merron, Gillian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moriey, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Todd, Mark


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Oaten, Mark
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Öpik, Lembit
Tyler, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Pearson, Ian
Ward, Ms Claire


Perham, Ms Linda
Wareing, Robert N


Pickthall, Colin
Watts, David


Pike, Peter L
Webb, Steve


Plaskitt, James
White, Brian


Pollard, Kerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pond, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Pope, Greg
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Pound, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)






Willis, Phil
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wills, Michael
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Winnick, David



Woodward, Shaun
Tellers for the Noes:


Woolas, Phil
Mr. David Jamieson and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 1

TEACHING OF ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE-RELATED SUBJECTS

'.—The Learning and Skills Council shall present a report annually on the trends in the teaching of engineering and science-related subjects throughout the previous year. This report shall include a section relating to the proportion of the cohort—

(a) commencing studies in those subjects; and
(b) completing studies in those subjects

with particular reference to the gender of students.'.—[Mr. Willis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10—London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee—

'.—(1) The Council will establish a London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee ("the Committee") to co-ordinate the activities of the local learning and skills councils in London.
(2) The Committee shall be appointed by the Council and shall consist of not more than 15 members and shall have a majority of members with business experience.
(3) The functions of the Committee shall be:
(5) The functions of the Committee shall be:


(a) to undertake research for the learning and skills councils and provide information on employment, skills and the labour market in London;
(b) to provide a forum for common decision making on the planning and delivery of the functions and responsibilities of the learning and skills councils;
(c) to agree common operational frameworks and guidelines for the work of the learning and skills councils in London;
(d) to liaise with the Mayor, the Greater London Authority, London Development Agency and other relevant partners on skills and employment issues;
(e) to co-ordinate the activities of the learning and skills councils in relation to the London Small Business Service.'.

New clause 19—Regional Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committees—

'.—(1) The Council must establish a Learning on Skills Co-ordinating Committee ("the Committee") to co-ordinate the activities of the Local Learning and Skills Councils ("the local council") in each of the English regions as described in section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 ("the Region").
(2) The Committee shall consist of not more than 15 members.
(3) Committee members shall be appointed by the Council from nominations by each of the local councils that comprise "the Region" and must include representatives from the Regional Development Agency, Small Business Service, local authorities and the wider business community.
(4) The Chairman shall be a member of and be appointed by the members of the Committee—
(5) The functions of the Committee shall be:



(a) to undertake research for the local councils and provide information on employment, skills and the labour market in each Region;
(b) to provide a forum for common decision making across the Region on the planning and delivery of the functions and responsibilities of the learning and skills councils;
(c) to agree common operational frameworks and guidelines for the work of the local councils in each Region;
(d) to liaise with the Regional Development Agency and other relevant partners as agreed by the Committee on skills and employment issues;
(e) to co-ordinate the activities of the local councils in relation to the Small Business Service;
(f) to co-ordinate the activities of the local councils in relation to the Careers Services.'.

Amendment No. 104, in clause 12, page 7, line 3, at end add—
'() The Council must establish systems for collecting information which is designed to secure that its decisions with regard to information, advice and guidance services are made on a sound basis.'.
Government amendments Nos. 31, 91, 32 and 42 to 44.
Amendment No. 74, in schedule 3, page 74, line 31, at end insert—
', or to the London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee established under section (London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee).'.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) will speak to new clause 1, but I wish to speak to new clause 19, which deals with the organisation committees of the regional councils.
It has taken four hours, but at last we shall be discussing the essence of the Bill. For all that time, Conservative Members avoided talking about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should talk not about what has gone before, but about what is before us now—the new clause.

Mr. Willis: I am admonished, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One of the real challenges in moving from the old organisation of post-16 education, training and lifelong learning is not simply to have a reorganisation but to do something much better. There is no point in getting rid of training and enterprise councils, the Further Education Funding Council or, indeed, the plethora of other organisations simply so as to swap the seats on the Titanic and replace them with different ones.
In Committee, in another place and in the House we have always argued that we wanted not a single Learning and Skills Council, but regional learning and skills councils coterminous with the regional development agencies—hopefully, the forerunners of the regional assemblies—so that the regions have not only an identity but, alongside the RDAs, the means to apply the skills and education agenda post-16. We lost that argument in Committee and we accept that. We do not wish to re-run it, as I am sure hon. Members will be delighted to hear.
In reality, many areas of Britain have ended up with a region, under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1988, and we now have sub-regional councils of the Learning and Skills Council. In Yorkshire and the Humber, for example, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and I operate, we have three such


organisations. The point of the amendment is that we surely need an overarching organisation that will allow the three organisations to speak to each other.
Much of the organisational structure set up by the Bill will hopefully work for the benefit of education and training post-16, but unless we have that co-ordination, the sub-regional committees of the local councils will go off on their own and will not truly speak to each other. All we are asking for is a co-ordination committee. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has tabled a similar amendment for London. That is the essence—

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and the Liberal Democrats have pulled back from their position in Committee, but in stressing the need for the changes he is surely showing a lack of confidence in the regional development agencies. He is suggesting that they are not capable of, or will not be able to make, the sort of contacts and communication that has been suggested.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Blackpool, North—[HON. MEMBERS: "South".] It was pretty near. The hon. Gentleman is showing an uncharacteristic naivety. He has demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the Bill, which surprises me. Throughout, we have argued that the connection between the RDA and the Learning and Skills Council is tenuous. Indeed, those links were put in only at the last minute. I would be happy if there were a direct statutory link between the council and the RDA as that would solve our problem. That is not the case, which is why we are arguing for the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will deal with our other amendments if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I regret the hour at which we are coming to these matters. After your stricture upon him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not enlarge on what he said. I hope that you will excuse my saying, however, that I noticed that the Minister who dealt with the previous debate declined to take an intervention on the grounds that we were short of time. As the House rose at 6 pm yesterday, such excuses seem funny in the conduct of Government business.
New clause 10 and amendment No. 74, which is consequential on it, stand in my name and I speak to them. They are of a probing nature. Amendments to the same general effect were moved at columns 836 to 843 on 10 February in the Standing Committee in the House of Lords by Lord Tope and Lord Harris of Haringey, neither of whom are of my party, but both of whom have been long involved in London local government. Lord Tope was once briefly a London Member of Parliament.
9.15 pm
I should in all honesty acknowledge to the House that in the debate on 10 February, Baroness Blatch advised the other place against the propositions that I am putting forward. But that was 10 February, and we have not heard further from the Government since Lord Tope, in acceding to the Government's request to withdraw his

amendment, said that he hoped that the Government would say more on the subject later. Since then, we have had silence.
I wish to probe the Government's position on a London co-ordinating body for the five learning and skills councils that are to be established in the capital. The subject was debated in another place—I have given the reference—but it has not previously been covered in this House. Lord Harris of Haringey explained the debate that had occurred in the London Development Partnership when it made its recommendation, by a narrow margin, that there should be five local learning and skills councils in London, but also recommended that there should be a co-ordinating body. The concept of the co-ordinating body was accepted by the Government, through Baroness Blackstone, in the other place when she responded to the debate.
I understand that the reason the Government have rejected the concept is that, although they have endorsed the concept of a co-ordinating body, they believe that it should not be on the face of the Bill. But although stakeholders in London understand the need to avoid another layer of bureaucracy, they are anxious to ensure a Londonwide approach to the many issues that cannot be decided solely by a single sub-region of London. The complex travel-to-work and travel-to-learning flows in the capital mean that unilateral action by one learning and skills council could adversely affect the actions of another. London's stakeholders are looking for a more powerful model than the one the Government appear to have in mind.
A stronger co-ordinating body is needed for the following purposes. It is needed to provide a focal point of contact for Londonwide employers and bodies, including the mayor and Assembly and the single Small Business Service. It is needed to provide labour market forecasting and analysis. There are significant economies of scale to be achieved by a joint approach, and the valuable work of the London skills forecasting unit needs to be sustained in the new learning and skills council arrangements. A co-ordinating body is needed to share and co-ordinate London plans and priorities—the fact that funding will follow learners and providers will require a Londonwide approach to planning and rationalising provision if real benefits are to be achieved. A co-ordinating body is also needed to agree operating frameworks and procedures so that learners and employers can be treated equally in London; and, finally, to provide a forum for agreeing collective action and overcoming disagreements.
We would not be building from a zero base in this respect. It is important that the good work that has been done by the London training and enterprise council and the skills forecasting unit on behalf of TECs, and the work by the London office of the Further Education Funding Council, should be incorporated in a new London co-ordinating body.
Since I tabled new clause 10 and amendment No. 74, the regional director of the London region of the Association of Colleges has written to me to say:
A co-ordinating body would make a great improvement to the provision of post-compulsory education and training in the city under the LSC. As things stand at present London will be divided arbitrarily into five areas whose boundaries defy the fact that the capital is a single labour market and also one travel-to-work and travel-to-study area. Although they bear no relation to reality, the


boundaries—once established—will begin to acquire the status of fiefdoms. Local council members and executive directors will soon believe that they know what is best for the individuals and firms in their own geographical patches, and begin to act without reference to either their population's wider interests or the greater interests of London as a whole.
At the very time when we have gained a body, in the form of the GLA, to look after the strategic interests of London, the Government intends to remove both the overarching powers and duties of the FEFC's regional office and the co-ordinating influence of the London TEC Council. We will now have to rely on a head office in Coventry to determine a framework for collecting and analysing information, for agreeing priorities and for bringing together plans. It would be much better to fulfil these functions regionally.
I tabled the new clause and the amendment as one London local MP among 74. In 1987, it was remarked by economists that, until then, the London economy had been growing more slowly than that of the rest of the country, but that the dramatic effect of big bang had accelerated growth in London, causing the city not only to grow faster than the rest of the country but to lead the country's growth. In my constituency, 20 times as many people are employed as in the average constituency—both nationally and in London; 22 per cent. of the working population of greater London work in my constituency. If the remaining 78 per cent. is divided by the 73 other London seats, the resultant figure is somewhat lower than 1.1 per cent.—that is, 5 per cent. of my 22 per cent.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) is in the Chamber. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the working population of my constituency alone exceeded the entire working population of Northern Ireland by 50 per cent. If there is such a great concentration in one constituency—which will of course fall under one particular learning and skills council—one fears that the benefits of that engine of economic activity in the heart of the capital will not be felt by the rest of London unless there is serious co-ordination. I have already referred to the London skills forecasting unit.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), is himself a London Member. Since I have been a Member of the House, we have seen increasing integration of the health service of London; policing has become borough based; and we are about to welcome the mayor and the Greater London Assembly.
I have one suspicion about the Government's action. As London will be the first of our cities with a mayor, that will give it pole position. That is why a co-ordinating committee has a relevance in London that it might not have in Birmingham or Manchester—as the Minister for Education and Employment made clear in the House of Lords. If London has such a committee, there is a risk that other people will want one too—as is revealed by the Liberal Democrat proposals. That would be easier to avoid if the issue were left out of the Bill.
Through the Government's initial response in the House of Lords and the impression they give us that they should be trusted—as there has been silence on the matter since then—they are saying, in effect, that they can be relied on to deliver a sensible arrangement, or that such an arrangement will emerge because they endorse the reason for it. However, there seems to be no reciprocity in other amendments tabled for debate; although the Government are asking London to trust them, they would not necessarily be trusted because of the statutory provisions that they want to implement—especially in relation to the cessation of TECs and their assets.
I do not want to leap forward to a discussion of those proposals; in tabling my provisions, I want only to be given a clearer idea of the results the Government envisage from a co-ordinating body whose importance—[Interruption.] I realise that the Minister is not trying to speak to me, but inevitably I can see his lips moving.
The Government should make clear what they think will occur in London—with much greater substance, structure and form than has been given so far.

Mr. Allan: I speak to new clause 1 and amendment No. 104, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and me. They highlight two important matters to which the Learning and Skills Council should pay attention.
New clause 1 addresses the shortage subjects of science and engineering, where problems could arise owing to the number of recruits across the board, but especially in respect of the number of women entering those professions. The new clause would require the Learning and Skills Council to collect data on the number of people both entering and completing courses in those subjects and to break down the information by gender, so that we can consider the number of women as a separate category.
The background to the new clause is that there are too few women at all levels of science and engineering. That is a matter of concern for the Learning and Skills Council, because the problem is especially acute in post-16 education. Up to GCSE, all girls study science and mathematics, so 51 per cent. of those obtaining a maths GCSE and 38 per cent. of those obtaining a physics GCSE are female students. However, the percentage of female students completing A-level courses is down from 51 per cent. to 33 per cent. for maths and from 38 per cent. to only 20 per cent. for physics.
Clearly, there is a huge fall-off at the A-level end of the education spectrum and the number of female students is further depleted by the time they reach higher education, where women constituted only 14 per cent. of applicants to engineering degree courses in 1998. However, there are variations across the different disciplines in engineering. For example, 24 per cent. of the applicants to study chemical engineering are women, but in mechanical engineering the figure is only 9 per cent. I hope that the House will recognise from those figures that the number of women studying science and maths falls off dramatically from the age of 16 onwards.
The Learning and Skills Council will have a direct responsibility for female students over 16. Further education often offers engineering courses as an end in themselves, but they suffer from a fall-off in numbers even though they can provide a gateway into higher education. The council should therefore take action to deal with that problem.
Although groups such as Women into Science and Engineering have performed valuable work and raised the number of female engineering graduates from 7 per cent. in 1984 to 15 per cent. today, that work is not in itself sufficient. We hope that it will be boosted by further Government action, particularly through the new bodies, such as the Learning and Skills Council, that they are setting up.
There are a variety of reasons for the figures, and one explanation can be found at the careers guidance level. Amendment No. 104 deals with careers guidance more


generally, but women appear to be pointed in directions that are not entirely helpful in achieving a balance between the genders on engineering courses.
The Department for Education and Employment could do more to promote active role models for women going into science and engineering. Such role models are perceived not to exist and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fewer women who study such subjects, the fewer there are to encourage other women to copy and aspire to their example.
If we do not tackle the problem, we shall miss out on a huge pool of talent. Women make just as competent scientists and engineers as anyone else. However, only 14 per cent. of the graduates in these subjects are women and if we were to achieve a 50:50 gender balance, a huge gap would be filled. A significant number of women would make good professional scientists and engineers, but for one reason or another they are not entering those professions.
Britain needs top-class engineers. By increasing the number of women in science and engineering, we would not only enhance and the assist the abilities of women wishing to enter those professions, but we would enhance the reputation of the professions as a whole. Men who are thinking of entering science and engineering may similarly be put off if they perceive them to be not truly modern, representative professions, but ones that conform to old-fashioned stereotypes about what science and engineering are for.
If the Government are not able to accept the new clause, I hope that they will at least accept the principle behind it. Will they give us an idea of how their new structure of a Learning and Skills Council that is responsible for policy in this matter will improve on the status quo? I hope that they will accept that they need to improve the position and that they will tell us that a priority of the Learning and Skills Council will be to achieve a better representation of women in the shortage subjects that I have mentioned.
I do not need to remind the Minister that this issue also follows through into the teaching profession. If people are not given the opportunity to study science and engineering at A-level and at degree level, they will not be able to become teachers. We have shortages in those key subjects and the Government are trying to deal with that problem. However, the first way of increasing the intake into teaching is to increase the number of graduates. That means expanding the pool across the genders.
9.30 pm
Amendment No. 104 is a response to many concerns that have been raised by the careers service about the new focus that the Government will have on 14 to 19-year-olds. We debated the issues in Committee and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about Connexions. I merely propose that the Government could provide reassurance by indicating that the national Learning and Skills Council will at least collect data on guidance services. We are all receiving plenty of anecdotal evidence about how careers services are being withdrawn. I have been given examples of schools, for example, which say, "We have only a few disaffected youngsters as a proportion of the yearly cohorts, but many others will not have the quality time and attention which

all youngsters require. The individual vocation and guidance interview is pivotal in all 11 to 16-year-old students' lives."
Many schools reflect this and ask, "How can we have equality of opportunity if we risk moving into a situation in which guidance services, while they are properly focused on disaffected youths in the key 14 to 19-year-old group, are not available to others?"
When the Government rejected an amendment proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Sharp of Guildford, they indicated that they do not wish to see statutory provision to the effect that we must maintain the level of services. In refusing to accept that amendment, they made a clear commitment to the careers and guidance services as a whole that the Government did not intend to see large-scale withdrawal of services from other groups of youngsters. We believe that they will not be able to justify their position unless they accept measures of the sort that we are proposing in amendment No. 104.
If the Government accepted that, we hope that they would seek to accept a base-line study to ascertain exactly what is happening. One of the problems is that we are not aware of the full picture within the careers and guidance services. Some of the provision takes place in schools, some by careers companies, some by other advice agencies, some by employers and some by training agencies.
It would be helpful if the Government were to require the national Learning and Skills Council to establish such a base-line study at this stage and then to report back regularly on it, so that we could see whether Connexions has led to withdrawal of service in other areas as advisers are diverted, or whether, as I think the Government have said they hope will happen, the broad range of provision available to all youngsters will be maintained at the same time as an enhanced service is offered to priority groups, preferably with additional funding made available under the comprehensive spending review. I understand that the Government intend that to happen.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to our suggestion that we undertake serious research into what is happening in careers guidance services. I hope also that he will make a commitment to report back in future so that we can establish whether the sort of fears that are being expressed to us from throughout the country are being realised, or whether the Government can pull out of the hat the magic rabbit that will deliver an enhanced service and a broad range of quality service to all youngsters, no matter whether they suffer social disadvantage or whether they are performing adequately at school, and thus risk being excluded from those on whom careers services will be focused.

Mr. David Heath: I support amendment No. 104. I apologise to the Minister and hon. Members who served on the Committee if I go over some of the ground that was covered in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke of the real fears of many in the careers service and in the school sector about the provisions that are set out in the Bill. I can only echo those fears from the view of my constituency. That was what prompted me to intervene on Second Reading, having had a useful meeting with Peter Renshaw of Somerset careers. My feelings and sense of concern have been increased by


letters that I have received from several secondary schools in my constituency, including Frome community college, Huish Episcopi school and Sexey's school, Bruton. They all make the self-same points, which I shall bring to the attention of the House.
Not one of the principals or head teachers who wrote to me expressed discontent with the Government's motivation and intention: they made it clear that prioritising social inclusion was an entirely meritorious aim which they supported and wanted to be reflected in their careers service. Their concern was that there should be no diversion of the resources necessary to provide an adequate service to all children, especially year 11 students who need their school careers service if they are to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them and enter either training or careers that are of value to them.
It strikes me that we are harking back to the debate of recent weeks about elitism in university admissions. The one way in which to break down such obstacles is to provide good guidance at the appropriate time to youngsters who are studying in comprehensive schools throughout our country—not only those who are falling behind, whether for social or educational reasons, but brighter kids who can profit from entering higher education and need to talk through the opportunities available to them if they are to take full advantage of them. There is a need to ensure that the new system continues to provide the same level of careers service in local education authority schools.
A cause of discontent expressed in a letter to me from Mr. Barry Bates, principal of Frome community college, is that the changes will adversely affect the integrity of the careers service as it stands. We are having difficulty finding permanent replacements for staff who are leaving the local careers service; it is a good careers service that achieves a great deal in our schools, but the uncertainty that surrounds the Government's proposals puts at risk the integrity of careers service teams.
The Minister can put our minds at rest by accepting our amendment. That would make it clear that there was an intention to revisit the matter and ensure that overall resources were not diminished by the changes. Not only could baseline data be collected but, even more importantly, baseline provision could be established, which would ensure that every child had access to a basic entitlement, irrespective of any additional support given to some. The Minister could also reassure us by making us confident that funding will be sufficient to meet all of the objectives that the Government have set out for the new service. We do not know how it could be provided—perhaps the comprehensive spending review will provide.
We in Somerset know that, on the whole, our county achieves good GCSE results and that we have relatively low levels of social deprivation, so we accept that we will not be winners. There is a separate argument to be had about schools funding, but we know that if resources are to be redirected to address social deprivation through careers services, the big increases will go to places other than Somerset. What we do not want is children in our

schools to be losers. That is the reassurance that head teachers, parents and students in my constituency and my county of Somerset want to hear this evening.

Mr. Wicks: At this hour, several important and detailed points have been raised. I shall do my best to answer them, but if I do not do so in the detail required, I apologise and promise to write to right hon. and hon. Members later.
I understand the Liberal Democrats' position on new clause 19 and their allegiance to regionalism. We discussed in some detail the pros and cons of that in relation to learning and skills in the Standing Committee. The new clause is designed to establish a relationship between the learning and skills councils and the regional dimension embodied in the regional development agencies. I am sympathetic to that aim, but I think that the new clause presents the wrong course.
As we have said before, the regional dimension of an influential role for RDAs and their regional skills strategies is clearly provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, local learning and skills councils will draw in broad representation from outstanding local individuals and the wider business community, with relevant expertise to ensure that Government-supported learning and skills delivery meets the needs of individuals, businesses and their communities at national, regional, sectoral and local level.
We expect local LSCs to play an important role in partnerships established by regional development agencies and other bodies, such as local authorities and the Small Business Service. I hope that with those reassurances and the more detailed reassurances that I gave in Committee about the consultation process between the RDAs and the LSCs, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be reassured of our good intention to relate the local to the regional with regard to learning and skills.
On new clause 10 and the issue of London, I thank the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for drawing this important matter to our attention. As a London Member myself, I take it extremely seriously. I remind the House that the London development partnership recommended that there should be five local LSCs in London and a co-ordinating mechanism to make sure that pan-London issues are dealt with effectively. The right hon. Gentleman, as a student of London governance over the years, understands the importance of London and the difficulties relating to boundaries within London.
At one stage there were some interesting arguments in favour of one learning and skills council for London, but because of the sheer size we thought that that would be a step too far for the interests of Londoners. We have repeatedly made it clear that we accept both conclusions presented to us—the need for five LSCs for London, and the need for a pan-London mechanism that would operate with a fairly light touch. There should be no question of our presenting the House with a recommendation for a new layer of bureaucracy.
As we prepare the ground for the new post-16 landscape, the Government office for London is engaged in discussions with key external partners, including representatives of the local authorities, training and enterprise councils, colleges, employers, trade unions and


the voluntary sector, about how the co-ordinating arrangement might operate and the issues that it would address. It would then be for the LSC chair and chief executive, in discussion with the five London local LSCs, to decide on the detailed arrangements. The work is under way already. We do not believe that we need statutory provision for those arrangements.
In describing what we need as a light touch, I do not mean one that is insubstantial. The issues in Greater London are considerable. Clearly, at a time when Parliament has re-established a Greater London Authority and the people of London have just elected their first Mayor, it is entirely appropriate that we examine Greater London issues. With those assurances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I thank him for raising an important issue.
In speaking to the Government amendments to schedules 1 and 2, I give due credit to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), whose eye for detail first enabled us in Committee to spot the possible need for an amendment to schedule 1. The point that he made was that the chair or chief executive of the national Learning and Skills Council, both of whom will be LSC board members, should be eligible for re-appointment to their additional roles as chair and chief executive, as well as for re-appointment as LSC board members.
The hon. Gentleman agreed at that time to withdraw his amendment to allow for an examination of that point in relation to other provisions in the Bill. The result is a set of technical amendments in respect of the national LSC, local LSCs, the Welsh council and its committees, as well as the adult learning inspectorate, which ensure that provisions in the relevant schedules are consistent in their effects on issues of membership, tenure and re-appointment. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, gain some well-deserved satisfaction from seeing that Government amendment No. 42 is identical to that tabled by him in Committee. I thank him for his close scrutiny of our Bill.
9.45 pm
In respect of new clause 1, the Government entirely agree with the Liberal Democrats about the importance of improving the participation of women in science and engineering courses. The fact that I am replying briefly to the considered speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) takes nothing away from that, or the importance of participation in the industries for which they prepare.
The number of girls and women studying science has gone up in recent years, and the DTI has been actively campaigning to improve the situation still further, especially in engineering. Of course, the LSC will collect comprehensive information on subjects being studied and on student achievements in all areas of post-16 learning, including science and engineering courses, and we expect it to make the figures publicly available. I think that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wanted. The FEFC publishes statistics for each academic year on student numbers in the various subject areas, which includes a breakdown of students by gender, age and mode of study. We expect the LSC to continue this activity, and the provisions in the Bill allow for that without any further amendment. The hon. Gentleman may therefore consider withdrawing what I think was an important probing amendment on an important subject.
I understand and sympathise with the sentiments behind amendment No. 104, which calls for information. On the basis of that, we have had a brief discussion on the nature of Connexions as a universal service. I shall say no more about that now, because a later set of amendments will enable us to discuss it a little more fully. I say simply that we are committed to Connexions as a universal service for all of our 13-year-olds to 19-year-olds.
The Government are already developing systems to capture information relating to the local information, advice and guidance services, including their quality, efficiency and impact. The Secretary of State will set priorities for information, advice and guidance provision as part of the process of allocating funds to the LSC. Depending on the nature of these priorities, the Secretary of State will devolve responsibility for managing the appropriate information systems needed to support him.
Finally, I come to the remaining Government amendments to the LSC's functions. We have always made it crystal clear that the provisions in the Bill which set out the LSC's functions will encompass both work force development and economic regeneration activity. Indeed, these matters are at the heart of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 make that explicit.
In Committee, we reflected on the priority for work force development at the local level through an amendment to the provisions governing the local LSC's plans. Amendment No. 31 to clause 16 represents the second half of a commitment we made in Committee. It makes it explicit that at the national level the LSC's strategy must set out how it intends to develop the skills of people in the work force, while ensuring that that does not inadvertently affect the interpretation of the LSC's overall remit.
In Government amendment No. 32 we return to the territory of local LSC plans. It makes explicit our commitment to economic development and regeneration by providing that a local LSC's plans must include a statement of the likely affect of its activities on the wider economic development and regeneration of its area. No one should now be able to doubt what is already set out in the "Learning to Succeed" White Paper and the prospectus for the Learning and Skills Council: our commitment to give adults the opportunity to continue learning throughout their working life.
I hope that with those explanations and assurances—

Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to be derogatory about the hon. Gentleman's speech, whose spirit I very much appreciate, but he did not really add anything to what I said in speaking to my amendment. However, he said that he would write to me. It would be extremely helpful if he would write with rather more substantive comments on what the Government office for London is achieving in terms of negotiations with the principal stakeholders.

Mr. Wicks: What I sought to do, albeit with an eye slightly on the clock, given the hour and the business before us, was to say that we need a body representing the whole of the Greater London perspective. We are in consultation and we are developing our plans. The right hon. Gentleman, as a fellow Londoner, will be the first to know when we have developed our plans. I hope that the assurances that I have given mean that the hon. Member for Harrogate and


Knaresborough will consider withdrawing the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.

Mr. Willis: I thank the Minister for the courtesy of his replies and for accepting that the issues that we raised, even at this late hour, are serious. It is rather sad that we are rushing through the amendments, which have enormous substance. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was right to make a crucial point about London. It is sad that we have not debated that properly. However, with the assurances that we have received, especially about collecting statistics on women in engineering and science and the effectiveness of the new careers service, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

PROVISION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 4, line 24, at end add—
'(4) Any funding by the Council of provision of education and training under this Act (whether direct or indirect) shall be in accordance with the arrangements and formula contained in any order made under subsection (1) of section (Free Schools).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: No. 76, in clause 7, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
'(aa) on condition that the quantum of grant per pupil in each school shall not be less than that applicable in the final school year for which the local education authority had responsibility for funding pupils above compulsory school age; and'.
New clause 13—Free schools—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish a mechanism for determining the funding of all maintained schools (the funding formula).

(2) The funding formula shall be on the same basis for every school but must have regard to:

(a) the numbers on roll at 1st October in each school year
(b) the age of pupils at any school including any below or above the age of compulsory schooling
(c) such other special factors affecting the needs of pupils or the cost of provision as the Secretary of State may determine:

(3) The governors and teachers at each school, as the case may be, shall use their allocation under the formula and such other revenues as are at their disposal to conduct education at that school; and in discharging their duties may draw on local education authorities or other bodies for free or paid-for advice and support and other educational services.
(4) On the coming into force of the funding formula introduced under subsection (1) sections 45 to 53 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall be repealed.
(5) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions amending, repealing or revoking enactments) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.'.

Mrs. May: Amendment No. 87 is a paving amendment for new clause 13. I shall therefore consider them

together. First, I should like to consider amendment No. 76, which relates to the all-important issue of funding for sixth forms in schools. It would introduce protection for sixth form funding, and would ensure that schools that currently have sixth forms knew that there was some certainty about their future funding, which they will receive under the new arrangements from the Learning and Skills Council via the local education authorities.
There is considerable anxiety in schools with sixth forms, especially those with small sixth forms, often because of their geographical circumstances. That applies especially to rural secondary schools, whose numbers will not be sufficient for a large sixth form. However, without that sixth form, the opportunities for young people who want to continue their education post-16 would be remarkably limited. It is important that sixth forms in schools can remain. However, there is real fear that sixth forms will be under threat in future. One of those fears is caused by the swingeing powers in the Bill to declare school sixth forms inadequate, or to declare weaknesses and therefore set their closure in train.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will raise the subject of inadequate sixth forms later tonight.

Mr. Clappison: And tomorrow morning.

Mrs. May: Indeed. Some important amendments remain to be debated.
I want to deal with the second issue that worries schools with sixth forms: funding. The Minister may say that the Government have given schools some comfort in their guarantee on sixth form funding. However, as most heads will say when asked about the matter, they believe that the guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on. The guarantee states that the funding for school sixth forms will be maintained provided that the numbers are maintained. There has been much debate about what the Secretary of State meant by that phrase. It has been suggested to many schools that if their numbers fall, even by one or two students, the guarantee no longer holds, and that their sixth form funding will come under threat, with all the attendant consequences for the future of that sixth form.
To illustrate the anxiety in schools, we surveyed London heads of schools with sixth forms and asked for their views about the Bill's proposed changes to sixth form funding and the structure of post-16 education. The answers were illuminating. First, the House may care to know that 62 per cent. of those heads felt that the Government were pursuing a levelling agenda in education for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is interesting to note that 70 per cent. of the schools surveyed believed that funding for their school had fallen in the past three years under the Labour Government. In relation to the future of their sixth forms, 97 per cent. of heads believed that pupils should have a choice in provision—between a sixth form in a school and other providers. Sad to say, the Bill could reduce that choice, as school sixth forms might be closed on the back of the Government's proposals.
Sixty per cent. of the heads felt that the future of their sixth form was under threat as a result of the Government's actions. For heads, schools, parents and pupils, that threat has introduced uncertainty about the future of the provision in those schools and where pupils


can choose to go to undertake their post-16 education. We want to provide a measure of certainty for those schools and take away the uncertainty and the threat. That is why we tabled amendment No. 76, which would give schools a more genuine guarantee than the phoney guarantee provided by the Secretary of State and would ensure that they would not suffer a loss in funding for their sixth form as a result of the changed structure and the changed funding mechanism.
It is interesting to note that House of Commons Library figures show that schools with sixth forms get significantly better GCSE results. There is a knock-on effect down the school. It is not just about allowing pupils to have the opportunity to choose to go to a sixth form in a school environment rather than a sixth-form college or a further education college. The provision of a sixth form in a school has an effect on teaching and pupils' achievement in the rest of the school.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady clarify her final comments? Does she not agree with the latest research which shows that the smaller the sixth form, the less likely students are to do well? Sixth forms with fewer than 50 students perform extraordinarily badly compared with, for instance, sixth forms with more than 200 students or, indeed, sixth-form colleges and even FE colleges.

Mrs. May: It is important to examine the circumstances of any particular school. If, for example, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would prefer to remove the sixth form of a small rural secondary school purely because of its size and take choice away from pupils, I do not accept that that is the way forward. Pupils should have the choice that is available. It is interesting that, in many other aspects of education, the hon. Gentleman would join the Government in talking about the importance of teaching in small groups. The problem that is often mentioned in relation to small sixth forms, and, indeed, the issue that has underlain part of the debate about the definition of weaknesses in schedule 7, is whether a small sixth form class should be declared as weak purely because of its numbers. One cannot say that, simply because a group is small, it will not achieve or that teaching quality will be lower.

Mr. Willis: First, I intervened to question the hon. Lady's assumption that all sixth forms appear to have better results than schools, sixth-form colleges or FE colleges. That is not the case. On the latter point, of course I would never argue that small groups are necessarily bad for teaching. However, I would argue that, even in a rural area, a school's ability to give students choice and diversity in a sixth form with numbers as low as 50 would be seriously hampered.

Mrs. May: I am happy to clarify what I said for the hon. Gentleman. The figures from the House of Commons Library show that schools with sixth forms get better GCSE results, so having a sixth-form has a knock-on effect down the school, as it provides role models and raises the quality of teaching throughout the school.

Mr. Willis: indicated dissent.

Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am happy to provide him with the independent House of Commons Library figures, which clearly show that schools with sixth forms get better GCSE results.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

It being Ten o'clock further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Learning and Skills Bill (Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mrs. May: I have to say that I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) making those comments about small sixth forms in rural schools, because, from the sound of it, the Liberal Democrat policy is to abolish such sixth forms and put the pupils into other provision.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: I shall give way once more, and then I wish to make progress.

Mr. Willis: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is generous and courteous, as always. Hansard will show that I never mentioned rural schools; it was the hon. Lady who mentioned them. If she is extrapolating Liberal Democrat policy from what she believes I have said, she will clearly need to read the record.

Mrs. May: I will be happy to look at the record, and I am sure that it will show that the hon. Gentleman has not contradicted my interpretation of the Liberal Democrat view on small sixth forms in rural schools.

Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, I want to make progress.
Amendment No. 76 clearly aims to provide certainty to schools that are worried about the future funding and very existence of their sixth forms and their ability to maintain them. They are worried about the impact of that on teaching and on pupils in earlier year groups. They are worried also about the impact on choice for students in future.
Many students choose to stay on in the school environment for their post-16 education, rather than moving to a sixth form college or further education college. Sadly, some choose to go to an FE college and then find that they have made the wrong choice and want to go back to their school. It is important that students have that choice and can actively decide to remain in the school environment and to benefit from the pastoral support and extra-curricular activities that are provided, rather than simply having the opportunity to go to a tertiary college.
Amendment No. 87 is a paving amendment for new clause 13, which would introduce a different method of funding pupils and give schools the power to choose how to spend all of their budget. This subject will not come as a surprise to the Minister. The Secretary of State referred


to it in his speech to the National Association of Head Teachers on 1 June which led to The Daily Telegraph headline, "Blunkett frees state schools". The article said:
All state schools will be set free of local education authority control and will effectively be given grant-maintained status, says David Blunkett, the Education Secretary.
We know full well from long experience of the Secretary of State's speeches that, to understand his intentions, one has to look behind the headlines and search for the substance. Sadly, as with so many of his headlines, when we delve into the detail—with this Government, the devil is always in the detail—we discover that, although he claims to be freeing state schools, the proposals do nothing of the sort. There is a certain sense of déjà vu about that.
About two years ago, the Government introduced "fair funding"—their new method of funding schools, which was lauded as a measure by which the freedoms of grant-maintained schools would effectively be provided again for schools; they would get 100 per cent. of their money and be able to decide how to spend it. Of course, that was another example of the triumph of spin over substance. In fact, far from schools being given 100 per cent. of their budgets, funds are being held back by local education authorities.
LEAs can hold back 89 different categories of expenditure under four different categories of responsibility. Once again, we are told that 100 per cent. of the funding will go to schools and that LEAs will be funded for four specific categories of responsibility, but the Secretary of State has in fact proposed not that schools will get 100 per cent. of their funding directly, but that a Green Paper will be issued for consultation.
We all became interested in the fact that the Department for Education and Employment might publish a Green Paper on school funding, but we now find that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to issue a document which, among other local authority funding matters, will refer to LEA funding. Far from "Blunkett frees state schools", it is a case of the Green Paper being issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and, like most things that the right hon. Gentleman issues, it is likely to sink without trace.
Conservative Members genuinely believe in free schools and in schools being self-governing. We believe that they should have their budgets and the freedom to exercise choice over how they spend them. After all, the Conservative Government created grant-maintained status, but the Labour Government have abolished it. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would provide a new basis of funding that would enable schools to be entirely self-governing. One of the first issues raised with one when one visits a school is the degree of Government prescription, not only in relation to the amount of bureaucracy that the school faces but, and more particularly, in relation to its funding.
Schools do not have the freedom to decide how to spend money for themselves. They increasingly find that money is held back not only by LEAs, but, more particularly, by the Department for Education and Employment, to be spent purely on political priorities set by the Government, rather than on the practical priorities that the schools know are needed for their pupils.
I recently met head teachers in Kent who complained about funding and prescription. When I asked them whether they would prefer to have the money and the power to spend it themselves, their response was simple—to a man and woman, they just said yes. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would enable the Government to put into practice the headline that David Blunkett got into The Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows the conventions of the House.

Mrs. May: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer of course to the headline that the Secretary of State achieved in The Daily Telegraph. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 give the Government an opportunity to put their legislation where the Secretary of State's mouth was. They give them the opportunity to say, "Yes, we actually want schools to be free; we want them to have their budgets; and we want them to be able to spend them in the way that they wish."
I fear that the Minister will oppose and reject amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 because, behind all the headlines, the Government have a centralising agenda. They have a bidding culture, in which spending priorities for schools are determined in Whitehall. They have a "one size fits all" approach and they think that the man in Whitehall always knows what is right for pupils throughout the country.
If we really want to raise standards, we should set the schools free. If we want to raise standards, we should enable schools to maintain their sixth forms. For the information of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the figures from the House of Commons Library show that 9 per cent. more pupils achieve five or more A to C grades at GCSE at schools with sixth forms than at schools without sixth forms. That is a clear message about the impact of school sixth forms.

Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Lady accept that of the schools with sixth forms, a significant proportion will be selective schools and therefore have a different intake? Of those without sixth forms, by definition, none is selective. It is inevitable that there is a higher percentage pass rate at GCSE because of the involvement of selection.

Mrs. May: As the hon. Gentleman told us earlier that grammar schools as well as other schools were not achieving in academic terms, that was a very silly argument for him to produce.
If we want to raise standards in schools, we should set the schools free. Grant-maintained schools have shown what can be achieved. They increased the number of teachers and the number of courses. They offered extra choice for pupils. They introduced new music departments. They added sixth forms to schools that wanted them. They raised standards because they had their budgets. They had the freedom. They were self-governing.
Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 will enable schools not just to enjoy the benefits of that freedom again, but, most important, to raise standards for pupils, to benefit pupils throughout the country and to do what the Government claim they want to do, but what their policies are not doing: ensuring that every young person


develops their full potential and that we genuinely have an education system that provides high-quality education and high standards for all our children.

Mr. Willis: The reason why we have got to 10.10 pm and we are still not discussing the essence of the Bill is perhaps explained by the skills taskforce, which reported on Tuesday that 7 million adults have a lower level of literacy than an average 11-year-old and that a quarter of adults function at an innumerate level. The reason for that is the 18 years of Conservative education policy, which produced the most appalling levels of literacy and numeracy anywhere in Europe. The reason why Conservative Members do not want to speak about the Bill and to address it is because it is an indictment of what they left behind.
On amendment No. 76, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) clearly has an obsession about sixth forms. I hope that we will discuss much of the sixth-form agenda, and small sixth forms in particular, during consideration of a later group of amendments, but I must respond at least briefly. I hoped that she would make the point—it is a real problem—about Government policy on the funding of sixth forms in the transitional stage. They guarantee that, if their numbers stay the same, they will get the same amount of money. If the numbers go down, they will not, yet if the numbers go up or double, there is no guarantee that funding will rise in proportion. When the Minister replies to amendment No. 76, she must address that specific issue. Sixth forms cannot plan for the future when they cannot have the guarantee of funding, which is clearly necessary.
The amendments were yet another diversionary tactic away from the essence of the Bill. We have had discussion of sex, selection and grammar schools, and we are now on to free schools—or free-for-all schools. I do not need to remind the House—I was one of the people who worked under the glorious education system that existed until 1997—that the Tories want to return yet again to division, and to the idea that standards can be raised only by competition and not by co-operation. It is a travesty for the hon. Lady to talk about the grant-maintained schools movement being the saviour of our education system. The divisions that were created by the ballots organised for GM status caused immeasurable harm in authorities up and down the country, and a return to that would be desperate.
10.15 pm
The Tory policy of free schools is based on a series of myths about local education authorities. Before the hon. Lady attempts to intervene, let me say that not all local authorities are perfect. Many of them leave a lot to be desired in terms of supporting their schools.
The first myth is that local education authorities waste too much money on administration. In fact, LEAs spend less than 2 per cent. of their income on administration and most of that goes on the administration of appeals, the special educational needs system, the payroll and other essential expenditure. That pales into insignificance compared with the administrative costs of most schools or those of the Department for Education and Employment, which are estimated at about 5 per cent.
The second Tory myth about local education authorities is that they retain vast resources. They do nothing of the sort. Indeed, 94 per cent. of LEAs delegate at least 75 per cent. of their budget and the average figure, according to the DFEE' s latest statistics, is 82.4 per cent.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman omits to say that that is a result of legislation passed under the Conservative Government, which obliged LEAs to do just that. Until LEAs were obliged by legislation to start delegating money in the way that he described and slimming down their administration, they were far more cumbersome and burdensome bodies than he now tries to pretend.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically frank intervention. I am not disputing the fact that the previous Government introduced the arrangements; I am complimenting them for doing so. That makes it even more ludicrous that those on the Tory Front Bench are now saying that the arrangements that they introduced are inadequate. If that is the case, who is to blame but the then Secretary of State?
An analysis of the money that local education authorities hold back for central expenditure shows that the vast bulk of it is to provide services for special educational needs and for people with disabilities. If the hon. Lady is saying that they should not hold back that money or that they do not do so with the consent of their schools and school governors, as applies in most cases, clearly the legislation that was introduced by the Government whom she supported is not working.
The third myth is that LEAs divert money that is planned for education into other sources and that, somehow, it gets taken out of the education budget and moved elsewhere. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that when the Tories left office, the contribution by local authorities to education budgets in 1996–97 was no less than £699.3 million and that, in 1999–2000, the contribution that local authorities made in excess of SSA to school budgets was £387.7 million. That is hardly a picture of local authorities taking money away from schools.
The whole essence of the free school movement, espoused by the hon. Member for Maidenhead in new clause 13 and amendment No. 87, is that we should have central funding. Heads and schools are attracted to central funding, and, as a former head, I would be the first to admit that. However, the new clause provides that, with a few exceptions, all children in all schools in England would get the same amount of money from central funds. The hon. Lady should be honest and admit that the cost of funding every school to the highest level of funding would be £4.4 billion. If, however, the hon. Lady does not intend to fund all schools equitably, she must say where the funds will be taken from to be spent elsewhere. If no increase in central spending is intended, current Tory policy means that some 40 per cent. of schools would see a reduction in their budgets in order to meet the free schools pledge.
The other point that the hon. Lady has to answer is that the £0.4 billion that local authorities spend on schools would have to be found either centrally or from somewhere else. I doubt whether any hon. Member would be prepared to urge local councillors to say, during a local


election campaign, that the Government were funding schools now, but that we needed to spend another £400 million to top up what the Government should be spending. That is nonsense, but it is the reality of what the free school movement would mean.
What evidence is there that our schools want to be free? What evidence is there that small rural primary schools want to be their own admission authority, to run all their services, to be responsible for their grounds and every other function or to organise contracts on a daily basis? They do not, and if the hon. Lady were honest about her discussions with schools in rural areas, she would agree that they want less responsibility. They want to be able to get on with teaching and leading their staff. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would plunge our schools into chaos, and I hope that the House will reject them.

Jacqui Smith: I shall keep my response brief because—as has been mentioned—we have not yet got on to the key issues of the Bill. The Opposition have not concentrated on those either. This debate has more to do with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) performing a warm-up act for the Leader of the Opposition's major speech on education next week than with a serious willingness to engage in the debate.
New clause 13 seeks to establish a national funding formula, applying on the same basis to all schools. As we have heard tonight, the previous Administration often said that they were in favour of greater delegation, but, in reality, they did little to achieve it. However, we have acted. Under fair funding, there is not only greater transparency, there is also greater delegation.
Later this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish once again tables showing expenditure by local education authorities, and their delegation rates. Those tables will show a substantial increase in delegation, brought about by the targets we have set and by the requirements to delegate repairs and maintenance fully, as well as personnel and finance administration.

Mrs. May: If the Minister is claiming that the Government are so much in favour of delegating money to schools, why did they abolish grant-maintained status?

Jacqui Smith: We have succeeded in delegating more money to all schools. Along with those matters that I mentioned, we have delegated personnel and finance administration, school meals in secondary schools—with the option for primary schools—insurance, if schools want it, and a number of smaller items. In all, an extra £1 billion is available for delegation.
Although we have achieved greater delegation and will go on increasing it, we have done so with a responsible attitude towards pupils. The Opposition talk of free schools, but they are less keen to acknowledge that there are significant issues that need to be addressed. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, pupils with special educational needs cannot be dealt with just through a formula; they are not numbers. LEAs are needed to take a wider view of their needs. What would the Opposition do about those children?
The Government have inherited lots of failing schools and are making strenuous efforts to turn them round—efforts which owe much to the involvement of LEAs and need flexible and appropriate funding. Presumably, the Opposition would set those schools free to flounder.
School transport is a delicate and difficult matter which needs co-ordination, especially if pupils' rights to transport to denominational schools—or even, dare I say it, grammar schools—are to be actually reflected in the available services. Again, how would the Opposition cope?
While the Opposition are thinking about what they would do, we have made clear what we will do. We are reforming the funding of education for those aged 16 to 19; part of that will be the funding of sixth forms via the Learning and Skills Council, but through LEAs so that local needs are properly addressed and schools continue to get funds from a single source. That illustrates how unnecessary amendment No. 87 is. We will be reforming the very heart of the education funding system in ways indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he spoke earlier this month about the forthcoming Green Paper.
In that Green Paper, we shall set out options for arrangements that would be fair to different parts of the country, are more transparent and provide more predictability and stability than the standard spending assessment system with which we have to cope now.
We shall also explore the possibility of having separate budgets for schools and LEA central functions, so that we can be much clearer about the funding intended for schools. That would make clear the amount of funding that was being made available and end once and for all annual arguments about what schools should be getting. We will do that on the basis of discussion and consideration and not on the basis of a policy drawn up on the back of an envelope, such as the Opposition have provided this evening.
Quite aside from the fact—as was argued in Committee—that it is entirely unnecessary to put our sixth-form funding guarantee in terms in the Bill, there are other problems with amendment No. 76. On funding, spending in schools fell by £60 per pupil in the last three Budgets of the Conservative Government. Under this Government, spending will increase by £300 per pupil. Given those facts, I feel that our guarantee has rather more basis than any comments that the hon. Member for Maidenhead may have made this evening.
The hon. Member suggested that there was a fear for school sixth forms. If pupil numbers reduce, all that will happen is that the funds will reduce pro rata. That is exactly what has always happened under local management of schools and fair funding. The guarantee is maintained and it is a real-terms guarantee; that is unprecedented and is not reflected in the amendments.
There are several other technical problems with the amendment. It suggests that the baseline should be the academic year from September 2001, despite the fact that the transfer will happen only eight months into that year. The amendment seems also to suggest that funding for sixth forms should all of a sudden switch to the academic year from the financial year, which would surely cause chaos and increase administration and bureaucracy.
On consultation, I agree that we did not ask the London Conservative party to carry out our public consultation. However, there was widespread support for the case for change and on the question of what the baseline year for the funding guarantee should be.
10.30 pm
In the light of all those problems, I urge the hon. Member for Maidenhead not to press the amendments and the new clause. I hope that the Opposition will also end their campaign of frightening parents, schools and LEAs into believing that the Government have a hidden agenda for school sixth forms. Our only agenda is one that we are proud to publicise—that provision for 16 to 19-year-olds should be of high quality, and that it should offer a range of options. School sixth forms will continue to be an important and valued element of education provision.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Under-Secretary of State smiles at the end of a speech that would have been more enjoyable if, instead of sounding like a wind-up Minister, she had smiled while she made it. She has assured the House that if sixth form numbers fall, funding will not be cut more than pro rata, but she did not say what would happen if sixth form numbers grew. We have to assume that she could not give the assurance that, in that case, funds would grow pro rata. Perhaps she would like to give an assurance to that effect to schools that are successful in expanding their sixth forms.
It is clear that people in many education authorities are keen to have a mixture of provision. In the West Sussex area, for example, there are sixth form colleges and schools with sixth forms. The House should unite in saying that the Government should show more confidence in children and their teachers, and that the aim should be to help them achieve far more than has been the case over the past 20 years or so.
When I first came to the House, some large schools had more than 1,200 pupils, none of whom gained an A-level pass in maths, physics or chemistry. Those schools were not successful. Many people said that pupils in large schools, regardless of whether those were rural or inner-city schools, should be able to achieve the sort of success that would allow them to go on to university or medical school, or join a range of professions. There is now a bipartisan agreement that that can and should happen.
The disappointment in the debate was that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) seemed to think that he was opposing the Conservatives in government, and gave his implicit support to almost everything that the Labour Government are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked him what was the Liberal Democrats' policy on sixth forms in rural areas, but he did not answer. That will allow Liberal Democrats to be attacked by Labour and Conservative Members for letting down many teachers, pupils and parents in those areas.
Finally, it is true that children are not numbers. All children, parents and teachers want to achieve what in South Africa is called "upliftment". The connotations of that word are a greater sense of achievement, and a greater opportunity for it. Achieving that requires a little less of the partisan approach that we have heard from the Government over the past three years.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to a Green Paper. Will she assure the House that the consultation process will be more open than the health service consultation that was bounced out by the special political advisers to the Department of Health a month ago? An education Green Paper that was a genuine consultation exercise would be welcome, I suggest to the Labour party—

Mr. Blunkett: What has this got to do with the Bill?

Mr. Bottomley: I am following up a point made by the Under-Secretary of State in this debate. She referred to the Green Paper, and that involves consultation. If that is news to the Secretary of State, it is a jolly good thing that he is listening to the debate.

Mr. Blunkett: What a silly man. Is that a challenge?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, would refrain from making sedentary interventions.

Mr. Bottomley: The Under-Secretary referred to the Green Paper in her response to the debate on the amendments, for which the Secretary of State was not present. I was saying that I hoped that the consultation would be genuine. If the Labour party wants to respond to the consultation, that would also be welcome. For us to have a bipartisan approach to improving education, each person should try to respond to the questions that others are asking.
My belief is that we are doing our job better if we allow schools and sixth form colleges to improve their output. That requires the confidence of the teachers, the interest of the parents and rather less of the minor party bickering that the Secretary of State introduced into the debate this evening.

Mrs. May: I am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take the opportunity to accept the amendment that would remove the uncertainty from the future of school sixth forms. I am also disappointed that they have not indicated in answers to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) what will happen to school sixth forms when numbers increase—because the schools are worried. However, the Government do not trust the schools, the heads or the teachers. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats do not trust the heads or the teachers either. We do trust the heads and the teachers to get on with the job of raising standards in our schools. That is why we want to give schools complete freedom and ensure that they get all their funding and the opportunity to decide for themselves how to spend it, rather than having to take instructions from the Minister on where to spend every £10, and have the Government decide their priorities for them.
Because the Government have not seen fit to put their legislation behind the Secretary of State's mouth, I shall press amendment No. 87 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 323.

Division No. 241]
[10.36pm


AYES


Amess, David
Letwin, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lidington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Beggs, Roy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Luff, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Madel, Sir David


Brady, Graham
Malins, Humfrey


Brazier, Julian
Maples, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
May, Mrs Theresa


Burns, Simon
Moss, Malcolm


Chope, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Clappison, James
Norman, Archie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Ottaway, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Robertson, Laurence


Faber, David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fabricant, Michael
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Hayes, John
Walter, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wells, Bowen


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Horam, John
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Willetts, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Key, Robert
Yeo, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lansley, Andrew
Mr. John Randall and


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atkins, Charlotte


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Austin, John


Ainger, Nick
Ballard, Jackie


Allan, Richard
Banks, Tony


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Atherton, Ms Candy
Beard, Nigel



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bennett, Andrew F
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Best, Harold
Flint, Caroline


Betts, Clive
Follett, Barbara


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foulkes, George


Borrow, David
Gardiner, Barry


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gidley, Sandra


Burnett, John
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Chaytor, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cotter, Brian
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cummings, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keetch, Paul


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kirkwood, Archy






Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lammy, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ryan, Ms Joan



Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sanders, Adrian


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sawford, Phil


Mclsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


McNulty, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


MacShane, Denis
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stunell, Andrew


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle



(B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mountford, Kali
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Tipping, Paddy


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Trickett, Jon


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Öpik, Lembit
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pickthall, Colin
Tyler, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Tynan, Bill


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Pollard, Kerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Pond, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
Watts, David


Pound, Stephen
Webb, Steve


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
White, Brian


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wicks, Malcolm


Primarolo, Dawn
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Woodward, Shaun



Woolas, Phil


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Willis, Phil
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wills, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS AND GRANTS

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 6, line 11, after "promote" insert "—
(a)".
No. 29, in page 6, line 12, at end insert—
'(b) the making of arrangements which qualify under section 101.'.
No. 30, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—
'() may be specified as a body with which arrangements under section 101 may be made;
() may be designated by the Secretary of State under section 102(1) or (3) and may act in accordance with such a designation;'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 13

PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 7, line 10, leave out "adequate".

No. 58, in page 7, line 10, after "training" insert—
'which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 16

STRATEGY

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
'(2A) The strategy must include proposals as to how the Council intends to develop the skills of persons in employment; but this does not affect the generality of subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 18

SUPPLEMENTARY FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 9, line 6, leave out—
'hold shares in a company, or otherwise become a member'
and insert—
'subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 22

PLANS OF LOCAL COUNCILS

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 10, line 28, at end insert—
'(f) a statement of the likely effect of the local council's activities on the economic development and regeneration of its area.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Schedule 1

LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 70, line 23, after "member" insert—
'or chairman or chief executive'.
No. 43, in page 70, line 25, after "chairman" insert "or chief executive".—[Mr. Wills.]

Schedule 2

LOCAL COUNCILS

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 73, line 38, after "member" insert "or chairman".—[Mr. Wills.]

New Clause 6

PLANS: WALES

'.—(1) The Council must make a plan for each of its financial years.
(2) The Council must send its plan for its first financial year to the National Assembly as soon as is reasonably practicable after the year starts.
(3) The Council must send its plan for any subsequent financial year of the Council to the National Assembly before the year starts.
(4) A plan for a financial year must include—

(a) proposals as to how the Council intends to achieve in the financial year any objectives which should be achieved in the year in conformity with directions of the National Assembly or with conditions imposed under section 47;
(b) the Council's financial proposals for the year;
(c) such other matters as the National Assembly specifies.

(5) The National Assembly must approve the plan or require the Council to make specified alterations of it; and if alterations are required the Council must make them.
(6) The Council must publish the plan as approved by the National Assembly or as altered in accordance with the National Assembly's requirements; and publication must be made at such time and in such manner as the National Assembly specifies.
(7) The Council may make and publish such other plans as it thinks fit; but any such plan must not conflict with a plan for a financial year.'.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 7—Strategy: Wales.
New clause 2—Delegation of training programmes: Wales—
'. The National Council for Educational Training for Wales may, in discharging its duties under sections 30 to 34, delegate to the Employment Service in Wales the contracting and management of work—based training programmes of the kind hitherto within the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils.'.
New clause 3—National training opportunities network: Wales—
'.The National Council for Education and Training for Wales must, in fulfilling its duties under sections 31 and 32, establish a national training opportunities information and placement network for persons aged 16 or above.'.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 30, page 14, line 1, leave out from "appointing" to end of line 3 and insert—

'members to the Council the National Assembly must appoint at least one third from the private sector and at least one other member who is a training provider in Wales.'.
Government amendment No. 92.
Amendment No. 2, in clause 46, page 21, line 19, at beginning insert—
'. The National Assembly shall appoint regional committees in accordance with the provisions of'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 21, line 19, leave out from "5" to end.
Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
Amendment No. 4, in schedule 5, page 80, line 5, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Amendment No. 5, in page 80, line 5, at end insert—
'and at least half the appointments to such committees must be from the private sector, with at least one other member appointed from training providers in Wales.'.
Government amendments Nos. 47 and 52.

Mr. Hanson: I will speak briefly to the Government amendments and new clauses, which I hope are largely self-explanatory. New clause 6 arises from a request from the National Assembly and from discussions with my hon. Friends for the Bill to include more explicit provisions on the planning functions for the council in Wales. It sets out the duty of the council to formulate a plan that must be approved by the National Assembly, which will have powers to require alterations to the plan. Any such alterations must be made by the council.
Amendment No. 52 arises from new clause 6, and I hope that it is acceptable to the House. New clause 7 places a duty on the council to prepare a strategy relating to its functions and to keep that strategy under review. The strategy must contain proposals as to how the council intends to achieve the objectives contained in any directions from the National Assembly. Again, I hope that those provisions are acceptable to the House.
The remaining Government amendments in the group have already been extensively debated; they relate to the Learning and Skills Council for England and give similar powers to the council in Wales. I hope they are acceptable to the Opposition, because several of them—amendments Nos. 45 to 47—relate to points made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) in Committee. I undertook to return to those matters on Report and have done so today. I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) tabled new clauses and amendments that are included in the group. I shall listen to the points they make and respond in due course.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and I tabled new clauses 2 and 3 and four amendments. Although I shall try to deal with each provision as briefly as possible, they relate to matters of considerable relevance to training needs in Wales, so it is essential that I make some vital points.
New clause 2 aims to make it possible for the Employment Service to be the contracting and management agency for some of the work-based training


programmes that are currently under the governance of the training and enterprise councils. We had in mind especially work-based training programmes for the creation of adult employability: the pre-vocational training, occupational skills and recruitment and training programmes for the over-25s that are currently contracted to and delivered through the TECs and training providers.
Such training programmes will better suit adults if they are linked closely to the new deal. Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that the new deal has been a great success story in our communities. It has broken with the fatalism and resignation that were left by the previous Administration and felt by many people—and not only by youngsters. They were left on the scrap-heap and were not offered meaningful training or employment opportunities.
I passionately believe that we should link training programmes for adult employability to the new deal. That is exactly what will happen in England. As I understand it, the new deal will be re-engineered in England for those aged over 25 to include what were the training and enterprise councils' training programmes. However, in Wales, the matter will remain with the National Assembly and be covered by its budget, so the programmes will not be a part of Employment Service provision. I hate to tell hon. Members and my colleagues in the National Assembly that I believe they have got it wrong in this respect—and only in this respect. England has got it right. A relationship should be created between the new deal and adult employment programmes as currently provided by the TECs, but that will disappear when the TECs disappear.
I have made this point before and the correspondence that I have received suggests there will be a new type of demarcation dispute. Because TEC budgets will go to the National Assembly and because employment services do not form an integral part of its role, the Assembly is jealously guarding its budget and the provisions for such programmes. I hope that such a petty demarcation dispute will not interfere with the best and most sensible way to deliver the programmes.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept new clause 2, but if he does not, will he assure us that there is nothing in the Bill to make it impossible for the Employment Service to deliver work-based training programmes in Wales? It is vital that we have that option. I fear that the National Assembly will not exercise it, which is why I seek a statutory basis for it in the Bill.
New clause 3 raises a separate and vital issue that I mentioned on Second Reading. Then, I explained that the catch-22 situation in our communities is that many employers do not offer training provision beyond NVQ 2. Many young people do not have the opportunity to train beyond that level, because work-based training programmes are not available. However, every survey that I have read suggests that we cannot have a new-tech or 21st century economy without such additional provision. How do we break through that catch-22? Because employers do not offer NVQ 3 training opportunities, how will young people in communities such as mine obtain such opportunities?
I draw an analogy with the position of a pupil in a sixth form studying A-levels and looking for a place a university. In such a case, a huge administration—the Universities Central Council on Admissions—ensures that a person with two Cs and a D can find a place at

university anywhere in the country. A huge organisation is designed to find a place for a person who wishes to pursue the academic route. However, there is no equivalent for vocational training. As so often, it is a Cinderella subject.
New clause 3 suggests that the new National Council for Education and Training for Wales would have a duty to set up a network to provide a vocational equivalent of the UCCA system for people who want to pursue vocational training opportunities that are not available in their local community or that are not provided by companies in their immediate vicinity. However, those opportunities may be available elsewhere—and, in my area, along the M4 at Sony, in Bridgend. How does a youngster find out what opportunities might be available in places other than in his immediate vicinity?

11 pm

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Information is necessary, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if young people have to travel considerable distances in the more rural areas, there will be a need for financial assistance to enable them to do so?

Mr. Rowlands: I agree that we should expand opportunity, and that will require additional financial provision. If anything should be the subject of an objective 1-type funding scheme, it should be the proposal that I am putting forward. We need to train the infrastructure of minds and skills as well as developing the physical infrastructure in our community. Objective 1 funding could assist, promote and deliver greater training opportunities. Financial provision for travel and access is extremely important.
Many of the young people in the community of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) or in mine do not know where these opportunities lie. If they were taking A-levels and wanted a place in a university, a huge organisation would help them find that place. There is not an equivalent for those with training needs. I am trying to place a duty and responsibility on the new Welsh council, but it might be an English point, too. There is a case for establishing a training network.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 relate to the composition of the national council and the issue of regional committees and their composition. As for the Welsh provision, we have nothing more than a skeleton. We do not know what the structures will be below the national council. This is the new post-devolution flexi-legislation. The issue will be left to the National Assembly to determine. Hon. Members, certainly those of us who represent Welsh constituencies and know something about training, have a perfect right to prescribe ideas and views on the nature and character of the council and the structures below it.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 suggest that employers should constitute a third of the appointments and training providers. Those who provide training should serve on the national council. I do not know who will be the chairman. I understand, however, that the English council chairman has been announced. In Wales, there is a powerful need for a total commitment to the scheme by employers. The TECs have failed in many respects because there was not an employer commitment. By giving employers a significant role to play at national council level and in regional committees, we hope to bind Welsh employers


into the entire process. By giving them the privilege of belonging, serving and being an essential part of it, we hope that that will lead to commitment, involvement and obligation.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that this matter has been debated a great length, and that there is a danger in making a test of a percentage the touchstone for the involvement of business? If the amendment were not carried, I would not want my hon. Friend to imply that the involvement of business would be any less important. Proportions can become a straitjacket. I think that everyone who has spoken on this topic over recent months has agreed with my hon. Friend's point that there is a need for business to be fully engaged and an important part of the council.

Mr. Rowlands: I accept my right hon. Friend's point. However, he probably understands and shares the view that we have a cultural tendency not to bind business into education structures. I am being rather modest in my observations in that respect, but let us consider the composition of the original education and training action group for Wales. It was dominated by the education and further education sectors, and its first report reflected that. My right hon. Friend will remember that it was as a result of the protest that followed that amendments were made to quotas to make the group more attuned to the needs of industry and employment. I believe, therefore, that that danger is present. I accept that there is a problem with prescribing, but I believe that we must send a message, loud and clear, that we want business, manufacturers and industry to be passionately and fully involved.
I come to the amendments dealing with regional structure. Once again, there is no structure below the NCETW set out in the Bill. We have no local skills councils, because we are awaiting the National Assembly's view on the role of the regions. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will tell me that we must not be prescriptive and that the right word to have is "may", as in "we may set up committees or regional offices". However, the first question asked in a glossy TEC paper that arrived in our post only this morning is:
Will the new National Council have Regional Offices?
to which the answer is:
It is intended that four regional offices will be established across Wales. These will work closely with the local CCETs—
that is, Community Consortia for Education and Training.
These offices will have committees which will advice the National Council on regional policy issues related to skills, education and training.
A TEC document has been issued to all hon. Members stating that there will be regional committees and regional offices, yet my amendment stating that there "shall" be regional committees is apparently not appropriate. Why should we take that from some glossy document, when we are told by Ministers here that we cannot lay down that provision in legislation?
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept my amendments. I am the last person to suggest a new quango, but, a new maxi-quango having been created in the form of the NCETW, I assume that there will have

to be mini-quangos below it to deliver its programmes. Maxi-quangos always give rise to mini-quangos, so, if we are to have mini-quangos, I suggest, first, that they encompass the people who have to deliver training—employers—and secondly, that they be regional bodies so that they can serve communities broader than local authority districts, which are often too small to deliver many of the programmes. I believe that there is a case for a regional structure, so why not put it in the Bill, especially as glossy TEC magazines tell us that the decisions have already been taken?
Training is vital to the future economic development of communities such as ours, but it has been the Cinderella of the system. We have to make it work and achieve our aims for the 21st century. I can think of no better way of spending objective 1 money than to make the Bill work and, by so doing, create more opportunities and a more diversely skilled community and society than we have now.

Mr. Ian Bruce: As I am sure the House will be relieved to hear, I rise to speak only briefly. I wish to ask a couple of questions about new clauses 6 and 7, which will clearly be passed if the Government use their might.
What assessment has been made of the costs to the taxpayer of the plans, both in the Welsh Assembly and in the national council? Recently, hon. Members will have looked over their local council's best value plans. My local authorities appear to spend half their time creating plans, formulating them and ensuring that they are meeting statutory requirements. When the Government, at such a late stage, decide to insert additional plans in the system, they should tell the House what assessment they have made of costs.
I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has been told by Ministers that his valuable contribution will be followed up. He has identified a matter that has already been identified by my local colleges. The Government have decided on a unified strategy for skills training. I do not resile from that. In many ways, it could be a good idea, but the Government have decided, as the hon. Member recognised, that the long-term unemployed for whom the new deal provides and who probably have the fewest skills in the entire work force should not be included in the training for which the councils are planning. In deciding how courses should be set up for new deal people and for people who are not on new deal, colleges will have two paymasters and two groups for which to plan.
The point made about Wales is also valid for England, but I shall not stray into that. I support the hon. Gentleman's argument. He was so keen to tell the House that new deal has been successful. He is clearly a man who can pick up on figures, whereas those on the Government Front Bench, even if they do not listen to the speech, seem unable to pick up on their own statistics.
If the hon. Gentleman considers the group aged between 18 and 24 who are long-term unemployed, and who are currently being helped, in the Government's terms, by new deal, he will discover that the Government currently claim to be helping more than 135,000 people in that group. If the hon. Gentleman looks back two years and examines the corresponding statistics, which are provided by the Government and the Office for National


Statistics, he will find that, before the benefits of new deal were available, that group numbered 115,000. Surely even those on the Front Bench can understand that the present figure of 135,000 represents a rise.
The hon. Gentleman identified the need to use the new councils, which, after all, are being set up with taxpayers' money, to help people gain the skills that they require, so that they will no longer be long-term unemployed, and so that they will not be in a new deal scheme that creates more long-term unemployed, instead of getting them out of long-term unemployment. Surely that would be a good thing.
I hope that the Government will listen to their hon. Friend, whose valuable argument I support.

Mr. Hanson: I value our short debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made some valuable points and I hope to reassure him on some of them.
With regard to co-operation between the new council and the Employment Service, under clause 34 the council may, for the purposes of post-16 education and training, disburse funding itself or, by arrangement with others, or by joint arrangement with others, to achieve its objectives. The latter two categories could, where appropriate and desirable, include the Employment Service in Wales in the manner set out in the new clause.
The new deal programme in Wales, which was highly praised by my hon. Friend, has not been devolved to the National Assembly, but I feel confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Assembly and I have a shared expectation that the new council in Wales and the Employment Service in Wales will work together closely and productively to ensure that we get the utmost benefit from the work of the new council and from the new deal programme.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) showed clearly that the Conservatives still oppose the new deal and still do not recognise that it benefits people in Wales. Whatever the figures he has brought together, there has been a 61 per cent. fall in youth unemployment in Wales because of the new deal. His criticisms are not strictly accurate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanson: I will not give way, as time is pressing and the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to speak. There has been a 61 per cent. fall in youth unemployment. The hon. Gentleman asked in passing about the figures and the cost of the plans. I cannot give him a specific figure for the plan, which deals with the way in which the council spends the resource, but our total budget in Wales will be in the region of £420 million next year. Obviously, the costs of preparing a plan will fall within that. Again, it is a matter for the National Assembly. The amendments are about the Assembly's powers to deliver those policy objectives in due course.
11.15 pm
I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the point on the new deal.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Hanson: I did not give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hanson: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Rowlands: I believe that what my hon. Friend has said is what I want, which is that the TECs' budget money that will now go to the National Assembly after their abolition, and, with the resultant employment problems, will be given to the council, and the council could disburse that money to the Employment Service, although the Employment Service budget is not within the National Assembly. Is that right?

Mr. Hanson: As I have explained to my hon. Friend, the position is that the council in Wales is able, where appropriate and desirable, to include the Employment Service, if it wishes, in the disbursement and undertakings that it wants to make. Where appropriate and desirable, it has the option of working closely with the Employment Service. However, the Employment Service is not devolved. What I am really indicating is more co-operative work rather than disbursements.
My hon. Friend spoke about his new clause 3. The existing careers service in Wales, under contract with the Assembly, is already empowered under the Employment and Training Act 1973 to provide a placement service for young people seeking training opportunities. Under its supervision, the current service will be developed and enhanced as part of an all-age information, advice and guidance service, and there will be a wider Wales careers service launched by the National Assembly from April 2001. I hope that that answers some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
With regard to membership, my hon. Friend will be aware that, under clause 30, the council is due to be constituted with between 10 and 12 members. I accept his point about the commitment of employers. I hope that employers, and, indeed, other sectors of the community, will get on board and provide strong support for the council in Wales. However, if we reserve places for the private sector and employers we shall be restricting the National Assembly's choice in the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my belief that there should be a commitment from employers, but that reserving places would be too prescriptive for the National Assembly, which wants to see candidates whose experience and qualities match the needs of the public bodies which they will serve. The scrutiny by the Assembly will be important.
My hon. Friend said that he wished to see regional committees. I draw his attention to the fact that regional committees exist in the National Assembly, looking at a range of issues across the Assembly at large. If my hon. Friend's amendment were passed, he would in a sense be creating two sets of regional committees, each having functions in respect of areas of responsibility within


Wales. That would lead to confusion. I hope that he will accept that, within the regional committee structure in Wales, there is an opportunity for regional input into a whole range of policies across the National Assembly, including within the councils.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the National Assembly's regional committees be the watchdogs of the regional offices of the national council? I read out the answer to the question in the TEC brochure, which arrived in the post today, saying that the offices will have committees which advise the national council on regional policies. Are they the regional committees of the Assembly or will they be specially established committees to act as watchdogs over the regional offices of what were the TECs?

Mr. Hanson: The regional committees of the National Assembly can look at any aspect, and obviously can look at the whole range of matters on policy issues. I shall happily meet my hon. Friend, as I have done before, and discuss that point in detail. I hope that, on the basis of that further offer and the assurances I have given, he will be able not to press his amendments and support the Government amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

STRATEGY: WALES

.—(1) The Council must formulate a strategy in relation to its functions and keep it under review.

(2) The Council must incorporate in the strategy proposals as to—

(a) how it intends to achieve any objectives contained directions of the National Assembly;
(b) how it intends to achieve any objectives within any time limits contained in such directions.

(3) The strategy must include proposals as to how the Council intends to develop the skills of persons in employment: but this does not affect the generality of subsection (1).
(4) The Council—

(a) may at any time send to the National Assembly a copy of the strategy as it subsists for the time being;
(b) must at such times as the National Assembly indicates send to the Assembly a copy of the strategy as it subsists for the time being.

(5) The National Assembly must approve the strategy sent to it or require the Council to make specified alterations of it; and if alterations are required the Council must make them.
(6) In exercising its functions the Council must have regard to the strategy as approved by the National Assembly or as altered in accordance with its requirements.'—[Mr. Mr. Hanson.]

Brought up, read the First and Second Time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 38

QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS AND GRANTS

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 18, line 8, after "promote" insert "—
(a)".

No. 34, in page 18, line 9, at end insert—
'(b) the making of arrangements which qualify under section 101.'.
No. 35, in page 18, line 10, at end insert—
'() may be specified as a body with which arrangements under section 101 may be made;
() may be designated by the National Assembly under section 102(1) or (3) and may act in accordance with such a designation;'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 41

PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 19, line 7, leave out "adequate".
No. 60, in page 19, line 7, after "training" insert—
'which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 44

SUPPLEMENTARY FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 20, line 22, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—
'(c) to subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities of a company unless the National Assembly consents.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Schedule 4

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN WALES

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 77, line 4, after "member" insert—
'or chairman or chief executive'.
No. 46, in page 77, line 6, after "chairman" insert "or chief executive".—[Mr. Betts.]

Schedule 5

COMMITTEES (WALES)

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 80, line 36, after "member" insert "or chairman".—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 59

ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR

Mr. Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 27, line 11, after "teachers" insert "or lecturers".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 77, in clause 67, page 30, line 40, at end add—
'(6) The Inspectorate and the Chief Inspector, acting together, shall publish at least annually a report on the operation of the framework.'.
Government amendments Nos. 23 to 25.
Government new clause 5—Annual Plan of the Chief Inspector for Wales.
Government amendment No. 19.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 75, page 34, line 16, at end insert—
'(3A) In conducting inspections of any training providers the Chief Inspector must have regard to the terms of the providers' contract.'.
Government amendments Nos. 20 to 22, 26 and 27.

Mr. Wicks: In essence, the provisions for the annual plan of the chief inspector for Wales are the subject of the amendments. New clause 5 places a duty on the chief inspector for Wales to prepare an annual plan for the forthcoming financial year and submit it to the National Assembly. The plan must set out the chief inspector's proposals for the way in which she intends to use the funds made available to her to carry out her inspection and other functions. Amendment No. 26 would place the Assembly under a duty to approve the chief inspector's annual plan for the forthcoming financial year, which she will be required to submit under new clause 5.
The other Government amendments are minor corrections and technical adjustments, with which I shall not try the patience of the House.

Mr. Boswell: First, I shall deal briefly with Government amendment No. 17, to which the Minister referred somewhat perfunctorily as part of a clutch of Government amendments. I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance; I therefore mention it before considering amendment No. 77.
Government amendment No. 17 would include in the chief inspector's remit the ability to consider
functions with respect to the training of or for teachers
"or lecturers". Has that remit previously extended to further education lecturers and their training? That is an important question. The Government are moving forward on the further education national training organisation, and we would support any improvement in professional standards. However, it is worth considering whether there is a substantive point to be examined or whether the amendment simply corrects an inadvertent omission.
I should also value the Minister's comments on instructors, who are important staff in further education colleges. They are not lecturers; they often instruct in specific technical skills. I am not clear whether the remit of Ofsted and the chief inspector would extend to them. If not, why not? How will the matter be resolved?
Amendment No. 77 reflects our continuing anxieties about the incoherence—to put it charitably—of the Government's provisions for inspection in England. I did not try to join in the Welsh debate, but, as some hon. Members know, my wife is from Wales and she is involved in education. Many members of her family before her have been involved in education in Wales. I take the Welsh analogy seriously. Even if the Welsh model of a single inspection is not the right template for England, it is perhaps more coherent than that for England.
Whatever would have been right for England, the Government have devised a messy structure, including a framework for the collaboration of the chief inspector of schools and the chief inspector of adult learning. We debated that extensively in Committee. I do not wish to reproduce those debates. We hope that the relationship will work well and harmoniously. That is more likely than

not. I was reassured by a presentation that Her Majesty's chief inspector for 16 to 19 education gave in the House. That is an important relationship, and, in Committee, we rehearsed what would happen if it broke down or was not as harmonious as it should be. We also discussed, and the Government introduced, provision for revising the framework as time, circumstances and experience dictate.
I realise that, at this late stage, Ministers may not be inclined to rewrite the Bill, but they should have it in mind that one way to deal with potential tension would be to get the two chief inspectors to sit down at least once a year and write an account of how the framework was going. They could—one hopes that they would do it jointly—draw attention to any difficulties in the framework. For example, they might want to float proposals for changes to the framework. If nothing else, that would provide us with an opportunity, perhaps through an Adjournment debate in the House or in Westminster Hall, to raise concerns about the framework.
My points about Government amendment No. 17 are probing, and my remarks about amendment No. 77 relate to the need to run past the House, or the general public, how the framework is going. We hope that it will be harmonious and that the two chief inspectors will work together and not find themselves in constructive tension.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: The idea of an annual report is worthy of consideration because it will help to tell us whether the common inspection framework is working. Getting it to work may be harder than we think. I say that not because I do not support the joint inspection process—I do—but because I have evidence of a joint inspection in Lowestoft college in my constituency in March, which took place under the transitional arrangements.
That joint inspection, with a common framework, was described by the college as a shambolic process. There was supposed to be a single team from the Further Education Funding Council and the Training Standards Council, but my discussions with the college lead me to believe that there was not a single programme of meetings or lesson observations and that the common evidence base was not effectively used.
Inspectors from both organisations turned up to observe the same class. There was clear evidence that they were failing to share the base of information that had been provided by the college. The staff felt that two separate inspections were taking place. They were asked to participate in feedback sessions, and the two organisations held their sessions at the same time, so it was impossible for staff to attend both. It was felt that the designated lead inspector took no notice of what the inspectors from the other organisation said.
I give that example to make the point that we must ensure that the procedures witnessed at Lowestoft college are not repeated as the new inspection framework is developed and comes into being from 2001. The annual report may help in that process.
The process at Lowestoft failed to provide the opportunity for colleagues to seek redress in respect of ineffective planning procedures. It is worrying that we are, perhaps, trying to join two diverse groups who are reluctant to come together, and, if we shuffle the same individuals as a pack, the process may not work. A common set of principles must be established, as


clause 67 requires. The irony is that, at the moment, both inspectorates demand separate evaluations, yet no single body appears to be evaluating the joint process.
I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and he gave the commitment that it would be investigated. I am sure that it will be, but that has not happened yet. Will he assure me that the matter will be investigated, not only out of fairness to Lowestoft college, but—and this is my point about the amendment—to learn valuable lessons that will help with the establishment of the joint inspection process, which I want to happen?

Mr. Rowlands: As I understand it, the inspectorate in Wales will cover not only schools and further education, but the whole gamut of training. Indeed, it is already inspecting training providers; some inspections have already taken place.
Following that experience, I should draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two points. One is to do with some of the comments on and criticisms of the training providers' work and programmes. The inspector has been saying, "You should do this, this and this" although those things are not part of the training providers' contract. I cannot see how such an inspection could take place. Surely, there can be inspection only of what the training provider is contracted to do.
The position should at least be clarified. It is perfectly right for the chief inspector to say to the body that has issued the contract—it has been the TEC—"You shall now do something else. Offer a wider contract to training providers," but it is not right to criticise training providers for not doing something that is not part of their contract. There have already been such criticisms during some of the inspections of training providers.
The second point is to do with the nature of the inspections themselves and the inspectors. I know of one case where the inspectors who turned up had experience as ex-principals, or experience in further or higher education, but had no experience of training, including industrial training, employment and the other world to which training is linked.
In Wales—it is the right and proper decision—we are to have one umbrella inspectorate. We will not have ALI: the adult learning inspectorate. We will have one inspectorate to cover the whole of Welsh provision, including training and training providers. We must ensure that the inspectorate is equipped and has people with experience and knowledge of the world of industrial and employment training. They should not come just from schools and further and higher education traditionally.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that, in Wales, we will bestow on the chief inspector those wide and broad powers; that inspectors will have regard to the contracts that training providers are given; and that the personnel who carry out the inspection will be much more broadly based. They should have a wider range of experience than was part and parcel of the old schools inspectorate, as we all called it.

Mr. Wicks: Amendment No. 17 concerns a matter of great interest to the hon. Member for Daventry

(Mr. Boswell). It is a very minor amendment. Clause 58(1)(d), which describes the extended remit of the chief inspector, contains the expression
training of or for teachers or lecturers.
The amendment therefore adds the words "or lecturers" to clause 59(3), which describes the additional functions of the chief inspector. The hon. Gentleman asked about instructors. We regard them as teachers for the purposes of the clause. I hope that that satisfies him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised some important points. Although it is not the intention of the legislation to provide for the chief inspector of Wales to inspect the service specification of the new National Council for Education and Training in Wales, the provisions in clauses 76 and 84 enable the chief inspector to draw the attention of the Assembly to any shortcomings in the council's specification, as appropriate. That is a sensible longstop in addition to the Assembly's arrangements for the monitoring and oversight of the council's functions. I hope that that explanation reassures my hon. Friend, but we are happy to discuss the matter in greater detail with him.
In discussing amendment No. 77. the hon. Member for Daventry raised some interesting points about the nature of the new inspections. In order to satisfy public accountability on the operation of the framework, there is a clear opportunity in each inspector's annual report to describe the previous year's experiences. That will be an on-going process. If there is a case for a joint report—I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's point—we will want to explore it. Therefore, I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but I promise that we and the new inspectors will think again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) drew on the experience of one joint inspection. That proves the value of our reforms, as my hon. Friend was describing the status quo and not the new system. The problem was that the two inspectorates were working to separate frameworks. Under the common framework, a single team would work with more harmony. We are persuaded by the first area inspection that joint inspectorates can work very well. If my hon. Friend writes to me with details of that experience, I will make sure that we properly consider the matter. I hope that, with those reassurances, hon. Members will support the Government amendments and not press theirs.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62

ACTION PLANS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 28, line 19, leave out "66" and insert "66(2)".—[Mr. Betts.]

Schedule 6

THE ADULT LEARNING INSPECTORATE

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 81, line 20, at end insert—
'() If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is not already a member of the Inspectorate, the Secretary of State must appoint him as a member for the same term as his appointment as chairman or chief officer.


() If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is already a member of the Inspectorate but his term of appointment as such would end before his term of appointment as chairman or chief officer ends, the Secretary of State must extend his term of appointment as a member so that it ends when his appointment as chairman or chief officer ends.'.
No. 24, in page 81, line 21, after "member" insert—
', chairman or chief officer'.
No. 25, in page 81, line 23, after "chairman" insert "or chief officer".—[Mr. Betts.]

New Clause 5

ANNUAL PLAN OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR WALES

'.—(1) The Chief Inspector for Wales must, for the purposes of the consultation required under section 104(4) of the 1998 Act (funding of HM Chief Inspector of Education and Training for Wales), prepare a plan for each financial year.

(2) The plan must be submitted to the National Assembly by such time before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates as the National Assembly may direct.
(3) The plan must contain estimates of—

(a) the expenditure necessary, in the financial year to which the plan relates, in order to secure that the functions of the Chief Inspector for Wales are discharged effectively; and
(b) the -income which the Chief Inspector for Wales will receive in that financial year and which may be applied towards meeting the expenses of the Chief Inspector for Wales.

(4) The plan must also contain proposals for the management of any funds which may be provided by the National Assembly for that financial year.
(5) The Chief Inspector for Wales may, after the plan has been approved under section 104(4A) of the 1998 Act, publish it in such manner and at such time as appear to the Chief Inspector for Wales to be appropriate.
(6) "The 1998 Act" means the Government of Wales Act 1998.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 73

THE EXTENDED REMIT OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR WALES

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 33, line 10, leave out from "1998" to end of line 12.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 79

INSPECTION OF CAREERS SERVICES ETC. IN WALES

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 36, line 17, after "Assembly" insert "for Wales".
No. 21, in page 36, line 27, after "Assembly" insert "for Wales".
No. 22, in page 36, line 30, leave out—
'(5) to (8) of section 34'
and insert
'(6)to (6C) of section 35'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 89

TRANSFERS: ENGLAND

Mr. Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 40, line 23, leave out subsection (11).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 124.
Government new clause 8—Transfers: Wales.
Government new clause 18—Training programmes: cessation of funding.
Government new clause 21—Pensions.
Government new clause 22—Pensions: interpretation.
Government new clause 23—Pensions: delegation.

Mr. Wicks: When we discussed the important matter of the transfer of assets in Committee, I promised to update the House on Report on the work that we are doing with TECs to agree the future use of assets. That work has led us to conclude that we need additional safeguards through the Bill to ensure that such assets continue to be used to meet national priorities and for the benefit of local communities.
TECs currently hold assets with a gross value of more than £600 million and a net value of nearly £280 million once current liabilities are taken into account.
It has become increasingly clear from our discussions with TECs that their future plans vary widely. Some are proposing to wind up the company and return all remaining funds to Government. Others have plans to keep the company going in one form or another. In a small number of cases—I emphasise that it is a small number—proposals are beginning to emerge which move away from one of the fundamental principles which has underpinned the work of TECs.
We believe that we must ensure that no TEC resources are used in support of any proposals that could be linked to individual shareholders or profits and take money away from public control. I emphasise that, in the vast majority of cases, we are having useful, civilised discussions with TECs on a TEC-by-TEC basis on the use of assets in a way that is consistent with national priorities and the needs of local communities. Only in a very few cases do we have concerns, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels strongly that we need the amendment in order to protect public money. Parliament would expect no less of us.

Ms Linda Perham: I am most concerned by what my hon. Friend is saying. I have received representations from the East London TEC. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure those involved that the East London TEC and a number of other TECs are not included in the small number at whom the amendment is directed. Some people involved in the TEC feel that the Government already have enough powers. I hope that my hon. Friend can offer some reassurance.

Mr. Wicks: If the Government already had enough powers we would not have tabled the amendment. We did so after much consideration, but there was a very real risk that we could not safeguard public money. We have to


reassure the public and Parliament that we have taken the necessary powers. I emphasise that the provision will affect only one or two TECs and, even in those cases, we hope through negotiation not to have to use the powers. However, significant amounts of public money are at stake and it is important that we make the amendments.

Mr. Willis: Can the Minister explain why he has not tabled an amendment that would deal with the contingent liabilities of directors of TECs, during and after the transition period? Many directors fear that, although they will have acted in good faith and dealt properly with current assets, they could be held responsible for contingent liabilities.

Mr. Wicks: We are considering that matter. We realise that most TEC directors have done a good job for their local communities and we are aware of their anxieties as they wind up their business. If we can provide reassurances for them, we will. We are working hard in that regard.
Some concerns have been raised by TECs about the new powers. In taking the powers, it is not our intention to override the TECs' existing commitments which we have agreed in their business plans; nor do we intend to exert a perpetual power over future arrangements. Nor do we wish to interfere with those assets brought to the merger by chambers or legitimately accrued since merger in the membership fund. Such assets should and will be available to chamber members to establish a new chamber. We will do nothing to change that. I hope that those reassurances are helpful.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My intervention follows those made earlier, because concern has arisen in Shropshire that the assets of the local TEC were provided for the specific use of the area. We should like some assurance that those assets will continue to be available for the successor bodies. What specific assurance can the Minister give us that Shropshire will not lose those assets?

Mr. Wicks: Some assets properly have to return to the Secretary of State, and that is widely understood. Some assets will be used to help to fund individual learning accounts, and that is understood. Where those requirements have been satisfied and local assets remain, we have given an absolute assurance that they will be used for local purposes. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rowlands: Do the powers apply to Welsh TECs? Do the worries and concerns that the Minister has mentioned apply to the situation of Welsh TECs?

Mr. Wicks: The same principle must apply—that we have to safeguard public money. In the case of England, we hope to do that by negotiation. I am sure that that will be achieved, but we felt that we should also take on additional powers.

Mr. Boswell: The Minister earlier gave a welcome assurance to the House on this important matter, to the effect that there was no intention on the part of Ministers to seek to alienate what might be termed privately

generated assets. What assurance is there that the powers of direction for the future of assets that the Secretary of State will take could not be applied to private assets? No specific safeguard is apparent in the new clauses.

Mr. Wicks: TECs were set up by Parliament on behalf of the public and the assets exist because of that public nature. I have given an absolute assurance that when assets have been properly generated locally and belong to the local community, they will be preserved for the local community. I have also given assurances about the future of chambers. We are trying to advance on the basis of agreement and negotiation, and we are using accountants and auditors who satisfy both parties.
It is only in the rarest of circumstances that we may have to use the new powers. However, if we had not provided for these powers, we might have had to come to the House in a few months' time and admit that millions of pounds' worth of public money had been used for profit-making purposes by new companies with shareholders. In that situation, the House would have been appalled and we would have had to appear before every Select Committee under the sun. The Secretary of State is right to put the amendment before the House to safeguard public money.

Mr. Boswell: I am somewhat shocked and disturbed by the Government's provisions. I have no wish to overreact, but, given the sensitivity of the situation in which TECs now find themselves, one would not expect them to express themselves with undue robustness.

Mr. Blunkett: We are talking about public money.

Mr. Boswell: I shall come to that point. The TEC National Council has stated that it is concerned to safeguard the reputation and integrity of TECs and chambers of commerce, training and enterprise, and feels that it would be unfortunate, at this late stage, if the proposals were to undermine the good will that has existed between TECs, CCTEs and the Government. I entirely share that sentiment and I hope that Minister does, too.
The new clause creates an entirely different dynamic to the negotiations. Some months ago, I jocularly characterised the Minister as the mad axeman. Now, I think that he has cast himself in a new role; that of playground bully. In effect, he is saying to TECs, "Please negotiate with me. If we do not get the outcome that I want, I will have your assets anyway and take them somewhere else." That is our concern.

Mr. Blunkett: There are assets.

Mr. Boswell: That is a very interesting point. I remind the Secretary of State of my question to his Department concerning any action taken to prevent forestalling action by the TECs, in effect, to sequester public assets. In doing that, I was criticised by the chief executive of one of the TECs for any implication that there was in some way an attempt to stash away assets into the private sector. We accept that publicly derived assets should be either returnable to the Secretary of State or applied by the Secretary of State to public purposes.
In many of the things that Ministers have said—including tonight's welcome reassurance that they seek agreement and earlier assurances that any locally derived assets would be applied locally—they have sought to be helpful. However, the problem arises where there is a genuine disagreement on either the origin or the nature of the particular assets in question. I have been at some pains to distance myself from the argument—which I did not think would be helpful to the general consideration—but I am aware of the circumstances involving the Northamptonshire chamber of commerce, training and enterprise, where there is a serious disagreement of principle as to the nature of the assets and their future control.
It is right that, in principle, publicly derived funds should be under the control of the Secretary of State. However, to take forestalling action, the Secretary of State's proposal is that, from the passing of the Act, he may, in effect, sequester any assets. The Minister was not able to assure me that those assets would be necessarily and absolutely certainly publicly derived assets. That is still a concern for the TEC National Council.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Minister or the Secretary of State is setting out to steal private assets, or the assets of my local chamber of commerce. However, the Minister has not given the safeguards tonight that we might reasonably expect. That is a concern. In any case, where there is a dispute, one party should not be able to resolve the matter in its favour and a matter should not be resolved under the threat of one party resolving it in its favour. It should be resolved, if necessary, by some independent procedure.
In Committee, I offered in good faith the possibility of considering arbitration in suitable cases as a way of overcoming the problem. I do not question the good faith of Ministers in dealing with the matter, but several aspects worry me.
First, in proposing these nuclear deterrent powers to intervene in what the Minister called extreme cases, the Government run the risk that TECs might take anticipatory action while the Bill waits to be enacted. That action could not then be reversed, and setting out the powers at this stage might encourage people who want to take action before the Bill becomes an Act. I do not canvass that approach, nor would I welcome it, but it is something that needs to be considered.
Secondly, although I hope that the negotiations in which the TECs are involved will be satisfactorily concluded, the Minister should consider whether it is fair for them to face the potential threat that Ministers may direct the fate of their assets without having to specify whether those assets are publicly derived. The problem is that it is arguable that, in some cases, those assets could have been derived from the membership of the relevant chamber of commerce.
My third point is a matter of some concern. The proposed powers amount to powers to alienate property in the private sector that belongs to another, regardless of whether that property derived from public funds. Ministers are thereby putting themselves at risk of legal challenge. For example, the imminent legislation to implement the European convention on human rights would prevent the alienation of private assets.
I am worried that, in seeking to overcome a potential or theoretical problem, the Minister may have used a blunderbuss that could trigger legal challenges. The result

may well be more difficult than would have been the case if the Government had proceeded by a more consensual route.
Of course I accept the case for a proper disposition of public funds. Equally, however, there is an argument that private funds, or funds whose ownership or derivation could be subject to argument, should be properly disposed—ideally by agreement or, if necessary, by independent resolution. With respect, it should not be done on the fiat of the Secretary of State.
I have gone on about this, despite the lateness of the hour, because I feel that it is of great importance. I do not want to press the matter to a Division in the House. However, when I have listened to the Minister's reply, I should be happy to defer to the greater legal wit and wisdom in another place, where the new clause will have to be considered and where the proposals may be viewed even less favourably.
I have not manufactured the concerns that I have described: they are seriously held by Conservative Members and members of the TEC movement.

Mr. Ian Bruce: It is rare for me to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is taking any matter to an extreme, but I think that the Minister is aware of a case in my constituency that is especially apposite to this debate about the proposed powers to transfer assets that have been given to a TEC for a particular purpose.
Weymouth college is based at two sites. One of them was passed to the college by a local estate, with the not unusual proviso that the asset should be used only for educational purposes. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State wish to intervene?

Mr. Blunkett: I think that the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Bruce: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The college wants to sell one site and to use the funds from the sale on rebuilding at the second site, but it has been told that those funds may revert to the state. I have had legal opinion from the Treasury Solicitor and the Attorney-General to the effect that this matter has to be tested in the courts. The college cannot simply sell one site and transfer the proceeds into educational spending.
That is exactly what is happening with TECs. They have been given assets for particular purposes; the money has been voted by Parliament. However, those assets will now be taken away from the TECs and used for other purposes. I hope that the Minister will address that point in relation to the Government's amendments.

Mr. Brooke: I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I apologise for the lateness of the hour, although that is not wholly of the Opposition's making. I commend the Government Back Benchers, who are being remarkably patient—rather more patient than Front Benchers.
The Government have a tough timetable in terms of implementing everything in the Bill for the deadline of 1 April next year. There must be a degree of anxiety about whether these matters will be concluded before the


Bill becomes an Act and while it is still before Parliament. In view of the Minister's observations about contingent liabilities and the discussions about them, it would seem eminently desirable that those discussions should be concluded before the Bill is finally enacted.
I am conscious that the issue hangs on one or two cases, and that is why the Secretary of State is seeking these powers. The problem is that one or two cases could be a moving target unless there is some process of identifying them to the official Opposition. That has to be a concern, although naturally there is a sense of trust towards the Government. However, the Government have said that the problems arising in one or two cases have prompted this measure.
The greatest hazard in what has, in principle, been an orderly and amicable process up to now, is the law of human nature that makes people behave according to the way in which they are treated. If they are treated as though a blunderbuss will be held to their head in the final analysis, that alters the climate in which the negotiations take place.
I think that the Minister must give greater assurances on how the Government will bring this matter to a conclusion while the Bill is still in front of the two Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Wicks: I genuinely regret the stance of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I pay tribute to the majority of TECs, and those associated with them, for their excellent work. We all know that there has been variation in quality, but I do not want to dwell on that. We want to build on good practice. We fully expect large numbers of excellent staff and many directors of TECs to be part of the new infrastructure of learning and skills councils.
It is important to emphasise again that, in the vast majority of cases, we are having sensible and calm discussions with TECs, helped by a firm of auditors and accountants, to look at complex issues about assets. They are complex because there is no such thing as a typical TEC. They vary a great deal—some, for example, are in partnership with chambers of commerce. We are looking at that in great detail. The process is being pursued in an orderly way. We may never need to make use of the amendment, but some cases concern us.
The hon. Gentleman adopted a rather belligerent tone, calling me the school bully. My job, and that of the Secretary of State, is to be vigilant on behalf of the public about the public's purse. I will give some instances, but I will not name names—unless I am tempted. In a number of instances, we have had to take firm action to prevent a TEC from taking steps that we do not consider to be in the public interest. These include a proposal to move a freehold property outside the control of the Department's debenture, the movement of a large sum of reserves into a trust and a proposal to establish a separate company with two TEC employees as the only shareholders. We have managed to head off those proposals, in part through existing powers in the contract and in part through stern discussions with some of those involved. However—and this is the rub—we are not confident that the contract can cover all the situations that may arise.
I emphasise that, faced with the situation in which some people are forming new companies and setting themselves up as the only shareholders, there is a real risk that they

will take the public's money and run. We will not let them run away with the public's money. That is why—yes, with a heavy heart and much consideration—we have tabled the amendment.
12 midnight
The TECs have money that is generated from the public, but I have already made it clear that where, for example, chambers are involved and they wish to re-establish themselves as sole chambers, we will be helpful in terms of the assets that we require. Where there is local money, which does not properly need to be transferred to the Secretary of State, it will be used for proper local purposes. We have to be vigilant on behalf of the public. That is what this Parliament is about; it is what the Government are about; and it is what the amendment is about.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 90

STAMP DUTY

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'or 89' and insert—
', 89 or (Transfers: Wales)'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

Clause 91

CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'or 89' and insert—
', 89 or (Transfers: Wales)'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

Clause 99

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO EXTERNAL QUALIFICATIONS

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 45, line 2, at end insert—
'(2A) In subsection (3) of section 24 for "(g)" substitute "(gg)".'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 100

QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 45, line 39, leave out—
'in or as regards Scotland'
and insert—
'for the purposes of any provision of, or made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament authorising grants to be paid to, or in respect of, individuals in connection with their education or training; and for this purpose references in this section to the Secretary of State are to be treated as references to the Scottish Ministers.'.
No. 96, in page 45, line 40, at end insert—
'(8) For the purposes of this section an enactment includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 101

QUALIFYING ARRANGEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 46, line 26, after 'are' insert '—
(a)".


No. 98, in page 46, line 27, leave out 'or Northern Ireland'.
No. 99, in page 46, line 28, at end insert—
', or
(b) arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements: Northern Ireland).'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 102

QUALIFYING ARRANGEMENTS: FURTHER PROVISION

Amendment made: No. 100, in page 46, line 42, at end insert—

'(5) The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment in Northern Ireland (or a person designated by it) may make arrangements with a body in connection with the making by that body of arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements: Northern Ireland).
(6) Subsections (2) to (4) apply to arrangements under subsection (5) as they apply to arrangements under subsection (1); and for this purpose references in subsections (2) to (4) to the Secretary of State are to be treated as references to the Department.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 108

PROVISION OF SERVICES

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 49, line 38, after 'particular'", insert—
',while having regard to the needs of all young people for access to independent guidance and to a mode of service which is appropriate to their particular circumstances'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, in clause 109, page 50, line 21, after 'team', insert—
'() a Connexions partnership'.
Government amendments Nos. 9 to 12.
No. 8, in clause 117, page 55, line 17, leave out "may" and insert 'shall'.
Government amendments Nos. 13 to 16.
New clause 4—Support for 11–25 year olds: Wales: provision of services—
'. The National Assembly may provide or secure the provision of services which the Assembly considers will encourage, enable or assist (directly or indirectly) effective participation by young persons in education or training.'.

Mr. Boswell: After those brisk exchanges, I accept, of course, that Ministers wish to act in good faith, and I am sure that their assurances on clause 89 and on the amendment which deals with the Connexions strategy are well intended.
In response to a blunt question in Committee, the Minister has already given me the specific assurance that all young people will have access to independent guidance. I thought it appropriate to try to embody that in the Bill, and, in effect, to help the Minister to honour his assurance. In respect of that and of the second part of that amendment, considerable concerns remain in what might be described as the guidance professions and the careers services. Those have been reflected in representations to us by the Guidance Council and the Careers Service National Association. The concerns were also mentioned

earlier by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but I did not intervene then, so as to save time and repetition.
Those in the careers services are concerned that, as a result either of signals from Ministers or of constraints on resources, activity has been diverted to young people who may be, or are in danger of being, socially excluded, at the expense of other young people. Frankly, if the Minister is to solve this problem, he will have to work something out—perhaps, although I anticipate it only in general terms, in the comprehensive spending review—to enable him to deliver a proper service to all young people, and a specific service to those in danger of social exclusion. Of course, he cannot comment on that at the moment.
On the substance of the amendment, we need to ensure that the undertaking that the Minister has given—that all young people will have access to independent guidance—means what it says. Essentially, that means access to a guidance interview, and/or to continuing support from guidance services if that is appropriate.
I believe that all of us who have had children who have passed through that age appreciate that, whatever their intellectual or other abilities, at some stage they need an opportunity to talk to someone outside their school and family who can give them well informed—and above all, independent—advice. That is the great virtue of the guidance and careers profession, and long may it continue.
In certain cases, access to IT information or a database may be appropriate and all that is needed, but in most cases the individual should meet a real person and receive real advice about their circumstances. That is a talisman which we all, on both sides of the House, need to preserve, and it is of great concern to the guidance profession.
In the second part of amendment No. 78, I refer to
a mode of service which is appropriate to their particular circumstances …
That sounds rather like a piece of Sir Humphrey-speak. Perhaps I may explain what I have in mind, because there is a real issue here about the way in which the Connexions service is delivered.
There is a genuine, although I hope only potential, criticism of a service that is still in its early days of establishment—that everything is focused on the needs of the socially excluded. For example, there is a very strong emphasis on personal mentoring. It would not be appropriate to reopen all those debates tonight, but although the relationship required for the potentially socially excluded young person may be of a mentoring nature, it would be unfortunate if what, for shorthand, I shall call mainstream young people did not have access to a different mode. For example, they could be taught by their teachers, in school or whatever, and then have access to independent guidance, not necessarily on the referral of a mentor but as a procedure that they could ask for or choose.
The danger with the way in which the Government have structured the service is that they require some 20,000 personal mentors. If those are recruited in large numbers from the guidance profession—which, as I recall, numbers some 7,000 staff at the moment—there will be no separate guidance profession left to deliver the independent guidance that we all wish to see. That would cause the independent guidance to fall, by default.
It would perhaps be better to move more slowly, and with greater sensitivity to the needs of individuals. There may be a role for the personal mentor, especially for the target groups that Ministers have mentioned, but that does not necessarily mean that the model must be universally applicable to all young people, or must be the same whatever the region or local circumstances. Ministers have talked about that, and I think that they will be flexible in considering the bids for the plans that have been put forward for the Connexions service; the local tendering has now concluded its first phase.
I am not unhopeful, but I say to the Minister in all seriousness that there are still some real concerns in the guidance profession that this matter has not been got quite right yet. We need to hold to the principle of readily accessible independent guidance for all young people, and we need to find the right model of guidance and support for all young people. It will not always be the same for each and every one of them.

Mr. Rowlands: I shall speak briefly to my amendment No. 8. Whereas in an earlier debate I said that I thought that the English had a superior solution to some of the problems, in Wales the arrangements for the development of youth services as proposed in clauses 117 and 118 are, if not superior to those proposed for England, at least more appropriate to Wales than the English provisions of Connexions would be. But if we are to make those youth services work, the money must be where the legislation is.
I note with considerable interest that clause 117 says that the National Assembly
may direct a local authority
to provide such services. It may actually make provision for grants. However, clause 118 states that a local authority
shall comply with a direction
served by the National Assembly under clause 117.
Amendment No. 8 would require that if the National Assembly for Wales issues such a direction and insists on a local authority's compliance with it, the Assembly "shall" rather than "may" provide the money for the local authority to fulfil that service. Without such a provision, the situation will arise—as it has so often in the past under all Governments—in which increased duties are placed on local authorities without adequate finance.
If, under clause 117, the National Assembly issues a direction to a local authority to provide certain youth services, as clause 118 states that authorities must obey such directions, surely the National Assembly should be obliged to provide the grants, loans or other financial assistance required to deliver the service. There is a compelling logic to my amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it, so that clause 117(4) reads, "A direction under subsection (1) … shall include provision for grants, loans and other kinds of financial assistance" to local authorities.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on a matter that I mentioned on Second Reading. In parts of the country such as the one that I represent, there is real concern that the diversion of

resources for an admirable intent—to assist those who are disadvantaged and who perhaps need more help—is at the expense of other sectors of the community.
In a recent letter to me, the Guidance Council said:
much of the traditional support available to all young people … has fallen off sharply. Resources have been diverted to the most needy.
The council referred to the switch of resources from the many to the few. That is consistent neither with the Government's objectives, as we understand them, nor with the interests of our children or our economy.
In a fast changing world, it is vital that more able children have access to good specialist advice. If such access is curtailed to fund support for the less advantaged members of society, we shall all reap the consequences in the poorer choices made by more able children. If they do not receive the training and direction that they need when they are young, not only their future but the future of our economy will be in jeopardy.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) spoke so briefly that I nearly failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I support amendment No. 78. I want to probe the Minister on the age ranges that would be covered under clause 108, especially if the amendment were accepted. Many colleagues are aware that young people with learning difficulties or mental disabilities will be greatly helped by the guidance referred to in the Bill.
I note that the clause relates to young people aged up to 20. However, such an age specification would often be inappropriate for young people receiving those services. The amendment might help local authorities by ensuring that appropriate guidance was available and the clause was not so prescriptive. It would provide that young people aged over 20 whose mental age was not more than 20 could receive further guidance to ensure that they could continue their career or obtain the training that they needed.
Will the Minister address that point? I have come across cases in local technical colleges, for example, in which there is an age cut-off beyond which assistance cannot be offered to such young people, although they are probably more in need of that guidance than their able-bodied counterparts.

Mr. Wicks: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the service for those with learning difficulties will not be restricted to the normal age group of 13 to 19. We shall extend it to those aged up to 25, to help them with transition. That is important.
12.15 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the new local service for young people. I think that the crux of his concern was that suitable resources should be available to get the job done. Clearly, resources will be an important element, and I want to provide the reassurance that they will be available. However, other matters might need to be covered by an Assembly direction under clause 117. Those might, for example, include the need for local authorities and other service providers to have regard to Assembly guidance on consulting young people and on the design of local management services.
We discussed the concerns of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) many times in Committee. The Connexions service for all 13 to 19-year-olds is universal; it is for all in that age group. All the children and young people in the critical teenage years need first-class impartial, independent and expert guidance about learning options at 16 and other stages. They may need guidance about going to university or about the modern apprenticeship scheme, and they may need guidance and advice about careers.
In a modern age, the way in such advice is delivered will vary. We need to make use of information and communications technology and we shall establish a telephone line, Connexions Direct, so that people can receive such advice. However, face-to-face contact is vital, so there will be a universal service for all young people. Special groups, particularly those from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds or those with learning difficulties, will need advice and guidance, but others, such as our most able boys and girls, sometimes need special help to get through school because of their high abilities. I recall that the Select Committee on Education and Employment produced a report on that subject a year or two ago.
The service will be universal because all young people will need it. However, the word mentor has been used, so I shall quote one of my academic mentors, the late Richard Titmuss of the London school of economics. He used to teach his students that if "poor people's services" are just for poor people, they tend to be poor services. Those of us who are universalists remember that. It will be a universal service for all people, because that is the most civilised and dignified way of giving support to the most disadvantaged.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 111

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS:INFORMATION AND ACCESS

Amendment made: No. 106, in page 51, line 40, leave out—
'and city colleges for the technology of the arts,'
and insert—
', city colleges for the technology of the arts and city academies,'.—[Mr. Wicks.]

Clause 114

INFORMATION: SUPPLY BY PUBLIC BODIES

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 53, line 16, after 'the' insert 'persons or'.
No. 10, in page 53, line 19, after 'person' insert 'or body'.
No. 11, in page 53, line 20, after 'Those' insert 'persons and'.
No. 12, in page 53, line 23, at end insert—
'() a chief officer of police,'.—[Mr. Wicks.]

Schedule 7

INADEQUATE SIXTH FORMS

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 85, leave out lines 20 and 21.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has rightly made known our concern about some of the Bill's provisions and their effect on sixth forms. I intend to be brief, but let me make it clear that we regard it as an issue of great importance. We certainly share the objective that we should deal with any institution for 16 to 18-year-olds that fails to provide a good education for its pupils and fails to help them to realise their ambitions and fulfil their aspirations.
There are clearly problems with the definition of inadequate sixth forms. It is confined to school sixth forms. It does not include the other types of institutions, notwithstanding the fact that school sixth forms have a better record of providing good GCSE results earlier on and better academic A-level results than other types of providers.
The definition of inadequate sixth forms is wholly unsatisfactory, and the amendment is designed to put it right. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether it will succeed in that purpose unless I have the attention of the Under-Secretary of State, who will not hear the problem that I shall outline if he does not listen.
A school's sixth form is said to be inadequate if
the school is failing or likely to fail to give pupils over compulsory school age an acceptable standard of education, or … the school has significant weaknesses in one of more areas of its activities for pupils over compulsory school age.
We have problems with that definition. We think that it is not clear or comprehensive, especially in respect of paragraph (b), which refers to "significant weaknesses" of schools. It is clear from that that a school may not be failing, or likely to fail, to give an acceptable level of sixth form education, but it could still fall foul of paragraph (b) because of "significant weaknesses". We need to know what are these "significant weaknesses", which are covered by paragraph (b) but not by (a).
Is the Minister able to tell us what these "significant weaknesses" might be? For example, might they relate to a school that provides a limited range of subjects, or to a school that has small classes in its sixth forms, even though the school is providing a good or adequate level of education? This is of particular interest to rural sixth forms, because they seem to be under the most pressure from the combined effects of the schedule, which gives more powers of intervention to learning and skills councils to close school sixth forms, and of earlier provisions that relate to funding.
The Government are taking more and more powers to intervene in respect of sixth forms. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that interventions should be in inverse proportion to success, but successful institutions are having more and more intervention brought to bear against them. If they are to face closure through being described as inadequate, we must have a better definition of what amounts to an inadequate sixth form than the Government have given us.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The amendment draws attention to an extraordinary situation. I think that the Minister, who is a fair-minded man, will understand what is likely to happen if lines 20 and 21 remain in the Bill. As a fair-minded man, I think he will say that deleting the words would not damage the purpose behind the provision.
There are very successful sixth forms in my constituency. Yet—I hope that this will not be a headline in the Dorset Echo tomorrow—each one of those sixth


forms could be classed as inadequate under the definition in the schedule. They all, and the sixth form college that provides sixth forms—although I do not think that it is covered by the provision—have significant weaknesses in one or more areas of their activities for pupils over compulsory school age. I am sure that each of the head teachers would say that, under that definition, they are trying to do things that they need to do better. They have to have more pupils, more resources or whatever. They are building up certain areas of their sixth form, and they may find that it is failing to meet expected standards in some areas.
All the sixth forms have been started since the inception of our sixth form college, as schools have decided to build up their own sixth forms. The success of the education offered to children in those schools has been improved by the introduction of a sixth form. However, when a sixth form is introduced and is in the process of being built up, it is, by common consent, inadequate—in terms of the range of subjects available, class sizes and so on.
Imagine a school inspector carrying out a normal Ofsted inspection and asking himself how he should define the situation regarding the sixth form. On reading the definition in schedule 7, he will have to tell the school that he is sorry, but he has to write in his report that the sixth form is inadequate. That would be the death of sixth forms that were just starting to build up a reputation—no one would want to attend them, so they would have no chance of developing.
No one would quarrel with the definition of "inadequate" set out in paragraph 1(2)(a)—that a school has an inadequate sixth form if
the school is failing or likely to fail to give pupils over compulsory school-age an acceptable standard of education.
Clearly, that is the test of whether the individuals currently in the sixth form will receive an adequate post-16 education. On occasion, when a particular department is not doing well, the school decides to close the department and not offer those subjects to its post-16 students; those students can then go to another school in the area or to the sixth form college to study the subject. However, that is not a reason for including paragraph 1(2)(a) in a statutory definition of an inadequate sixth form.
The Minister is a fair-minded man and I am sure that he is convinced by our argument. So that we can reach Third Reading and have a proper debate on it, I am sure that he will accept our sensible amendment.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I share my hon. Friends' concern. For some time, we have suspected that Ministers have a hidden agenda to reduce the number of sixth forms in secondary schools. Ministers believe that sixth forms cost too much and give some schools an advantage over others, despite the fact that when the Select Committee on Education and Employment considered the issue a couple of years ago, it found that there was very little difference in funding for sixth forms in schools and those in colleges.
My concern about the two lines identified in the amendment, on which my hon. Friends have not touched, is that the scope of a school's sixth form may be reduced to those subjects in which the head teacher and governors are absolutely confident that performance and delivery are

beyond question. As a result, the variety of courses that A-level students seek might be denied them, not because the school wants to restrict their choice, but because it fears that the quality of provision in certain subjects might not quite pass muster when the inspector comes to call; and that, because of that single failing in that single subject, the future of the whole sixth form in that school will be jeopardised. That will be the effect of the schedule as drafted.
The definition encompasses not courses but "activities". One of the activities undertaken by school sixth forms is the provision of advice on university admissions. From the views expressed by Ministers in recent weeks, we know that they think that sixth forms throughout the country are failing their students in terms of the advice they give them on access to university. Tony Higgins, chief executive of UCAS, was quoted in The Independent earlier this week as saying that
there's far too low a proportion of those from low socio-economic groups applying to go to university.
I agree. One of the reasons may be that those pupils are not getting the right advice from their schools. The solution is not to close down the sixth forms, but to bolster them.
As a result of the provision, the curriculum that those sixth forms offer will become even narrower in future, and many of them will fear that, because of their weakness in that respect, they are at risk of being closed down across the board. On such flimsy grounds, the Government could come in and reorganise sixth form provision in many parts of the country.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend reminds me that the Government say that sixth forms must take pupils over 16 from lower socio-economic groups and get them through A-level. Even a brilliant sixth form where all the pupils were doing well could still be classed as inadequate because pupils were not staying on. The sixth form would therefore be failing in an activity that the Government expected it to undertake.

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend touches on the reason why the word "activities", which is ill defined, is so wrong. It is surely up to the governors, the head teacher and the parents to decide what sort of school they want. We believe that it is their choice. It is not for some Government Minister to go round the country ticking one box and crossing another, deciding which schools are allowed to survive and which schools he or she will close down.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: When I raised the matter on Second Reading, my remarks were greeted with derision on the Government Benches. I drew to the attention of the House the importance of sixth forms in providing sixth-formers with an opportunity to exercise administrative responsibility over their juniors, and the benefits of that to sixth-formers. That was regarded by Labour Members as so unfashionable as to be derisory.
In my capacity as a Territorial Army officer responsible for the recruitment of further officers, it is my experience that pupils who have had this opportunity and responsibility often stand head and shoulders above their peers who have not had the same responsibility. That is


an important function of sixth forms. To what extent does the ability to offer sixth-formers the opportunity to exercise administrative responsibilities over the rest of the school feature in the Minister's definition of adequacy?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): I am glad that the Opposition share our objective that every student should receive an acceptable standard of education. However, most of what I have heard has been an alarmist attempt to whip up fears—I know that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will be fascinated by what I am saying—about an agenda that does not exist.
I shall immediately answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). The definition of "inadequate" is consistent with the statutory definitions of schools requiring special measures and schools with serious weaknesses. A sixth form or an LEA-maintained 16-to-19 institution will be found inadequate if it is failing or likely to fail to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education, or if it has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities for pupils.
That judgment will be made on the basis only of the quality of education that a school provides for its sixth form pupils. We will work with the chief inspector to develop detailed criteria that take account of the common post-16 inspection framework. Those criteria will be published.
For serious weaknesses to be identified in a whole-school inspection report can have equally serious consequences for a school. As with the judgment that a school requires special measures, a judgment of serious weaknesses will trigger the LEA's powers to intervene by appointing additional governors and suspending delegation of the school's budget. If the necessary improvements are not then made, the school is likely to be judged as requiring special measures at its next inspection, which would trigger the Secretary of State's powers to direct that the school be closed.

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Wills: I shall not give way, because I want to make progress and I am absolutely confident that when the Opposition have heard the power of my arguments they will feel impelled to withdraw their amendment.
We resist the amendment because it would narrow the definition of "inadequate" to sixth forms that are failing. But removing the possibility of closure for sixth forms with serious weaknesses would not be in the interests of students. They should be assured of high-quality provision wherever they choose to learn. Let us be clear in this respect: serious weaknesses are just what they say, not just minor problems about which anyone can afford to be complacent.
We shall also resist the amendment because it would cut across the careful way in which we are providing in the Bill for consistent inspection arrangements across post-16 learning, with similar standards applied to schools and colleges. If those arrangements are to be successful in encouraging improvements, rigorous follow-up arrangements must be in place; and where any provider of post-16 education is not meeting the standards that students have a right to expect, it must make the necessary

improvements or face the possible consequences. The Bill therefore contains provisions for the LSC and the CETW to intervene in colleges where students are not being offered the quality of education to which they are entitled. It is therefore entirely right that the councils should have parallel powers where 16 to 19 provision in schools is not of adequate quality.
Schools will not be left to struggle alone with the vital task of improvement. Local education authorities have a responsibility to help schools draw up and implement their post-inspection action plans, and, where appropriate, diocesan bodies should also provide support. These proposals are about safeguarding high quality. As we have made consistently clear in Committee and again tonight, we have no agenda for removing sixth forms and reducing choice for 16 to 19-year-olds. The hon. Member for Maidenhead keeps bringing up this subject. I hope that she is listening to what I am saying.
Many sixth forms are achieving high standards and excellent examination results, and we want more of them. We have made it very clear that schools that are providing high-quality education for their sixth form pupils have nothing to fear from the proposals in schedule 7, and it would not be right for sixth forms with serious weaknesses to be in that same secure position. As I have already set out, they will have three important safeguards.

Mrs. May: rose—

Mr. Wills: I will not give way, because the hon. Lady will be persuaded by the time I finish.
Sixth forms with serious weaknesses will be allowed a reasonable time to put things right after a first adverse inspection report. The crucial judgments about quality will be made by independent inspectors; and, finally, the statutory decision-making process will enable all the relevant issues to be fully aired.
We have made it consistently clear that our aim is that all post-16 provision will be of high quality. Our proposals for inadequate sixth forms are consistent with that aim, and with the principle that intervention should be in inverse proportion to success. I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will therefore be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Clappison: I am afraid that the situation remains as unsatisfactory as it was before the Minister spoke. He referred throughout to "serious weaknesses". I respectfully draw his attention to the fact that that is not the terminology used in paragraph (2)(b), which refers to "significant weaknesses".
The Minister was not able to give us an example of what a serious weakness might be. He said that serious weaknesses meant serious weaknesses, but could not give us a single example of a serious weakness that fell outside subparagraph (a) but came within subparagraph (b). It is no use the Minister's saying that it is related to education provision, because if it were it would fall under subparagraph (a), which concerns giving an acceptable standard of education. Nor did the Minister answer the point quite properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) that subparagraph (b) refers


not only to school lessons or the curriculum but to activities, which makes it much broader and widens the scope for finding that a school has a significant weakness.

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Clappison: I will give way, but before my hon. Friend intervenes, I should like to make the point that the Minister also failed, interestingly, to deal with the point that I made about whether a limited number of subjects or small classes would amount to significant weaknesses.

Mr. Bruce: I tried to intervene on the Minister. Doubtless he will jump to his feet and explain the point if my hon. Friend cannot do so. The Minister clearly suggested that the powers are exactly the same as those that already exist to deal with failing schools. If that is the case, why are sixth forms singled out by the terrible phrase "inadequate sixth forms"? Why is the closure of sixth forms, rather than the school, mentioned?

Mr. Clappison: I am sure that my hon. Friend's anxieties are shared by many hon. Members who have heard what the Minister has said—or failed to say—tonight in response to the problem. The worries remain. I am dissatisfied, but, in view of the need to make progress and the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote. However, genuine anxieties remain.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining Government amendments and new clauses agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Wicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At the end of a concert in Japan, the great lifelong learner and songwriter Mr. Bob Dylan observed that it was the time of hour when we had to run. Some of us were born to run, so it is therefore important that we keep the debate brief.
I believe that the Bill is a measure for a new century. The way in which we invest in the skills of our people and take seriously the concept of lifelong learning will determine Britain's economic future. The way in which we determine our sense of community and fairness is equally important for some of us. We are considering not only economics but social inclusion. We are setting up new structures to help the young to pursue workplace development and further education, and to promote adult and community education.

Mr. Boswell: I begin by briefly commenting on the Government's strange pendulum management of their business. Yesterday, the business was so thin, bland and non-controversial that we were sent home by tea time. Today, substantial matters are being discussed well past midnight.
The Opposition remain concerned about the Bill for the reasons that we set out in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading. Above all, we are worried about the centralisation of power and the risk of bureaucracy. It is not that the Minister is an arrogant man; his look of injured innocence if anyone seeks to assert that puts me off making such a claim. However, the dynamics of the position or, more sinisterly, those shadowy educational theorists who lurk in the wings of education policy but occasionally find themselves centre stage, may wrench matters in a direction that Parliament has now empowered them to take. An example could be the unresolved threat to close down sixth forms or, to put it in industrial relations terms, progressively and constructively to dismiss them, not so much necessarily by deeming them inadequate as simply by gradually starving them of funding.
The Ministers who served on the Standing Committee are certainly not lacking in personal charm, and I concede that they have sought to set out their stall as a reasonable case when the details of the Bill are being considered. Only today, however, in the discussion on the disposition of training and enterprise council assets, we had an example of the mask slipping. However much Ministers may claim to be acting in defence of the public purse and, as ever, with reasonableness, there will be those—and they will not all be twisters or people trying to take away Government assets—who will feel that their services and contribution have not been acknowledged, and that the Government's means of thanking them is to rig the course and create an inequitable solution on the disposition of assets.
I come down from the high horse of principle to a more practical level in my closing remarks on our concerns about the Bill. If nothing else, Ministers have, in one Bill and at one time, set themselves the task of introducing a single framework for post-16 education and a parallel connection strategy, both of which involve the schools sector and many other providers. That is, as Sir Humphrey Appleby would no doubt have commented, "Extremely courageous, Minister."
The policy, and the Bill that has been derived from it, are increasingly seen to be assembled in kit form, before our very eyes, in Committee and in the House. Only today, a new version of the transition planning document thumped on to my desk. That process will continue as the consultations continue, until vesting day next April and long afterwards. This is a policy of continuous experiment, if not necessarily of continuous improvement.
Until this late hour, and this last gasp, we have continued to seek from Ministers, and even occasionally to receive from them, assurances. After our deliberations tonight, one final hurdle remains in another place, and after that we will leave this over-sold, over-ambitious and under-achieving Bill with some trepidation. We cast it forth to await the consequences that have not been foreseen and, more widely, the judgment of events.

Mr. Willis: We have spent nearly nine hours on the Bill, and of that, 15 minutes have related to its substance. From the Opposition, we have had sex, selection, division and privilege, which are key areas for a Tory Opposition, but nothing about the substance of what we should be here to discuss—educational provision for 16 to


19-year-olds and adults, which is desperately under-represented, desperately under-resourced and desperately in need of support.
Anybody who read the skills taskforce report this week will be aware of the disgraceful skills situation among the adult population. The Small Business Service estimates that billions of pounds are lost because we do not have a work force with the skills to carry out the necessary tasks. Yet we have spent nine hours obsessing about sex, selection, division and privilege.
The social exclusion unit report, "Bridging the Gap", was a graphic reminder that 170,000 16 to 19-year-olds leave school with no qualifications, no hope and no nothing, but they have not been mentioned in the nine hours that we have spent discussing sex, selection, division and privilege.
As we end our consideration of the Bill, there is great sadness because this should have been a ground-breaking Bill. We sought a unified structure in post-16 lifelong learning, education and training. In 1992–93, the Tories created a marketplace. That was their answer to the problem: drive down costs and increase numbers. Everything would take its place. It has not. In reality, the Bill is a disappointment. Members on both sides of the House will share that disappointment. It has retained the narrow provision on the 16 to 19 age group. It has not extended its horizons beyond that, yet there is a classic need to address the underskilling of the adult population.
The Bill does absolutely nothing for small business, which was looking to the Bill to allow it to tap into a network to upskill our people. There is little in that regard. It has decimated the careers service into a Connexions service. We hope that that will be highly successful, but it is at the expense of an adult careers service and of careers services for people who achieve more than five A to Cs. The Bill has created a new bureaucracy that may or may not be more successful than previous ones. Through the back door, it has brought in city academies.
At midnight, I spent a few minutes doing a television programme, on which the official Opposition said that, when the Bill hit another place, all the problems in the House of Commons and previously in another place in terms of sex, grammar schools and selection would simply be regurgitated to kill off the Bill. If that happens, it will leave in limbo the TEC movement, the Further Education Funding Council and the whole of the reorganisation. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her colleagues must not allow that to happen. Despite our differences, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that there is enough merit in the Bill to give it its Third Reading and to support its passage back to another place.

Mr. Brooke: I was not able to be present at the conclusion of the Standing Committee because I was making a speech in the Second Reading debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. Therefore, I say briefly what I would have said then.
The Government had a certain choice of Ministers to put on the Bill. I will remark neutrally that I think that they chose extremely well. The three Ministers who served on the Bill served the legislation, the Committee, the Government and, indeed, Parliament well. As I said when we debated the sittings motion originally, our side necessarily had fewer resources and had less to choose

from, but we were admirably served in the leadership of the official Opposition by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
In Committee, I enjoyed all the observations by the Liberal Democrats and by Government Back Benchers. Lest I sound like the dodo in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", handing round prizes to everyone, let me say a final word about the Bill—something that came up from time to time in Committee. The Government had assured us that it was a bottom up Bill, not a top down one. My only regret about our time in Committee and about the Bill as a whole is that the Government never sought in Committee or, indeed, on Report to justify the claims that they made for it.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, having since late last year been a member of the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. I was surprised to find that the Select Committee had not published a report on the Bill—a lamentable omission—but, before my time, it published a report on further education, which, extraordinarily, the Bill seems flatly to contradict.
In the 11 months since I was elected to the House, I have it made it my priority to visit as many schools as possible in my constituency and to listen to parents, pupils, teachers, governors and the various youth groups and youth councils which are active and doing an admirable job in my constituency. In those many meetings, we have often discussed the basic proposals in the Bill as they have been progressively revealed to us. What they have been saying seems to be at odds with what the Government claim they have been listening to.
My constituents have the fortune of living in Cheshire, a relatively high standard education area compared with England as a whole. It has a relatively good take-up rate for 16 to 18-year-olds to pursue their education seriously. The questions are, first, "What do the Government think they are doing by trying to encourage parents to vote to scrap grammar schools?" As there are none in Cheshire, they look across the county border to Trafford and say, "Isn't this just another example of the Government's determination to level down and stamp on excellence rather than celebrating it and drawing upon it?" That cause has no finer advocate than my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Other questions that are asked include, "Why do the Government want to get rid of the TECs?"; "What will happen to the jobs in those TECs?"; and "Is my sixth form safe?"
If the Government really intend to introduce new sex education guidelines, why are they so embarrassed to promote marriage? If they are so keen to establish city academies in inner-city areas, why are they so grudging in their recognition of the involvement of the private sector in education? What is the Connexions service really going to deliver for the Winsford youth council? Surely all young people require access to guidance in an unpatronising way tailored to their individual circumstances.
The Bill does not address those straightforward questions from my constituents. I hope that the Minister will address them in his reply to the debate, given that the Government rejected amendments that would have answered each and every one.
There is a consistent thread in the Government's approach to the Bill—their lack of trust in those who have the front-line knowledge and expertise to deliver their objectives. That lack of trust is fuelled by their difficulty with the concept of competition—and even that word. As has been demonstrated, it is best to draw on the excellence of grammar schools and encourage other schools to compete, rather than threatening them with the Damoclean sword of repeated ballots. Surely the right approach would have been for the Government to take advantage of that excellence to drive up standards by competition rather than to hide behind the word collaboration, resulting in a cloud of bureaucracy and the inability for anyone to accept responsibility and accountability.
My concern, along with those expressed by my Front-Bench colleagues, is that the Bill started with fine aims, as peddled by the Government, but has lamentably failed by creating the potential for obfuscation, bureaucracy and centralisation, where it would have been far better for the Government to have trusted in the local delivery of the very services that they seek to promote in the spirit of competition, which would level standards up, rather than one of collaboration which, over time, will have a levelling down effect.

Mr. Swayne: When we considered the Bill on Second Reading, I thought that it attached to training a bureaucracy that would have been worthy of collective farming. However, it had two redeeming features: it provided a measure of protection for the teaching of the importance of marriage and, arguably, it put an end to the class warfare in respect of grammar schools. Both those redeeming features have been removed from the Bill during its passage through the House, so I could not support it on Second Reading and I certainly cannot support it now.
I apply to the Bill what I call the Ringwood school test. Ringwood school in my constituency was a comprehensive school that was transformed by the experience of becoming grant maintained. One of the elements of its transformation was its acquisition, in the teeth of opposition, of a sixth form. It is now a thriving and, most importantly, a growing sixth form. My question about the Bill—the Ringwood school test—is what does the Bill do for that school. My estimate is that it does nothing. Indeed, it threatens the existence of that sixth form. The only assurance that we have been able to get from Ministers during the passage of the Bill is that the funding of that sixth form will not shrink. That is a growing sixth form, and we need an assurance that the funding will grow with it. We have not had it and that is reason enough to vote against the Bill.

1 am

Mr. Brady: I would hesitate to support any Bill that failed the Ringwood school test, the new and important threshold that any piece of education legislation should pass.
Members of the Committee enjoyed a civilised discussion, and I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster

(Mr. Brooke) regarding the politeness of Ministers during the Committee. I am sorry that that attitude did not continue this evening. On occasion, Ministers have been bad-tempered and reluctant to be drawn on the detail of some of their proposals. They have also been reluctant to justify the implications of what they are doing, particularly in regard to city academies.
When the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said that there was centralisation and bureaucracy and that the careers service was being decimated, I was sure that the Liberal Democrats would try their hand at opposition for a while. However, the hon. Gentleman reverted to type by saying that he would encourage his party, as usual, to support the Government.
There are serious flaws in the Bill. Some of the difficulties that remain regarding the replacement of TECs by learning and skills councils are a concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out, the removal of some aspects of the Bill is also a cause for regret. We should have had an opportunity this evening to improve on the botched job that the Government made of previous legislation regarding the future of grammar schools. It is a cause for regret that, having seen that their policy in that area was palpably failing, the Government were reluctant to look at how to reform the legislation to remove the uncertainty and the threat hanging over some of the best schools in the country.
I regret that the Government have not been prepared to listen; to think a bit more; and to argue more cogently for the policies that they are pursuing. The Bill could have been so much better and it is a source of regret that it is not.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), although it would have been easier to hear them if there had not been so many conversations being carried out by Labour Members. I hope that they will do the House a courtesy and hear the Bill out in silence. If they have so little respect for the Bill, perhaps none of us should let it go through. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is a great deal of background noise in the Chamber. It is late in the evening, so let us listen to the hon. Gentleman, as a courtesy.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was that all right for the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. St. Aubyn: That was delightful; I could not have asked for anything more.
The Select Committee on Education and Employment looked at the matter a couple of years ago, and I remember a very different Liberal Democrat Member from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Labour Members concurred that the further education system had been working well and that the Further Education Funding Council was a success. The report found that its formula was well understood and we


heard again and again that the last thing that the colleges wanted was another reorganisation or change in the rules that would mean a new layer of bureaucracy, administration, time and expense while they got to grips with a new system.
I do not think that the Bill ushers in anything like the new era depicted by the Minister. It is primarily an attempt to rebrand an approach to further education developed by the previous Conservative Government. Under that approach, further education colleges were taken away from the dead hand of local education authorities and given their freedom. That freedom came with a framework of standards and fair funding that enabled colleges to deliver many more courses to many more people at a far more attractive cost to the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talked about obsessions. He and his party, and many Labour Members, are obsessed with the amount of money going into further education. Conservative Members are focused on what comes out the other end—the massive increase in the numbers who went through further education as a result of the previous Government's reforms.
I elicited a series of parliamentary answers from the Minister in which he revealed that the numbers going through further education in the first few years of this Government had fallen by 189,000 full-time equivalents. That number is equivalent to the 500,000 people who would have gone through courses if the rate of achievement attained by the previous Government had been sustained. At the same time, as I have pointed out in other debates, the number of vacancies in the economy now totals more than 1 million. That is the highest level for more than 10 years, and represents exactly the sort of cost pressure on wages and demand for employees that could well lead to boom and bust.
That wage-cost inflation is a direct result of the Government's failure to deliver, through the further education system, sufficient numbers of people with the right training for the jobs on offer. There is nothing in the Bill that answers that problem. On the contrary: at a time when education systems around the world are trying to become less political and include the dynamism of the private sector, this Bill represents a retrograde step. It brings back more political control over colleges and their links with local businesses.
The TEC in my area has been singled out for praise in previous Select Committee reports for the way it works in partnership with colleges and local businesses. It is having great difficulty in persuading business people to carry on giving of their time under the new skills councils system. Many such people remain to be convinced that their voices will still be heard, and that the business approach that is so vital in this area will continue to carry the weight that it deserves.
City academies are another example of the Government picking up a good Conservative idea. I am delighted at that, although it has taken them a long time to acknowledge the success that the previous Government achieved. The Government are rebranding the idea, and widening slightly the terms of reference of the academies, but they have given no clue as to how they will get more useful members of the private sector involved.
The Government take the unfortunate view that the private sector is some sort of milch cow that will add extra resources to the education process. There is no

appreciation of the role that it can play in developing new ideas and the sort of stronger management that will deliver a better school system.
The Government are too obsessed with the amount of money going into education and not obsessed enough with how those resources can lead to better results, higher standards and an increase in the number of people gaining qualifications in the excellent range of colleges inherited as part of the previous Government's golden legacy.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I had the good fortune in my first Parliament to serve on the Select Committee on Employment. It was interesting to see the transformation of view among Labour colleagues on the Committee about TECs being a good thing. When the previous Government abolished the Manpower Services Commission, which was a great employer in the Secretary of State's constituency, the TECs were at first universally condemned by the Labour party. Realising that those bodies were doing an extremely good job, however, Labour became wedded to the idea of co-operating with them, and trade unions became involved.
The Government are obsessed with modernising—as they describe it—everything in sight, particularly when it comes to anything created by the previous Government that was successful in improving training. Therefore, the Government have to rebrand the TECs and come up with a new proposal.
I am the first to acknowledge that when we introduced TECs, there was a lot of bureaucracy. The Treasury, in particular, wanted to re-audit the figures three or four times, whereas in a normal business, people would just get on with it. Abolishing the TECs and going through the rigmarole of removing their assets and creating a new body with new assets and employment rights means that the bureaucracy that had to be dealt with in the previous scheme must be dealt with all over again.
Many people from other countries came to the United Kingdom to discover how we cured the British disease and reinvigorated our work force. Ministers consistently tell us how unemployment has gone down—and it has. Yet it appears from what they say that all the changes made under the previous Government that led to the creation of jobs and the training that people have had within companies, colleges and universities can be dismissed as though nothing has happened.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who I understand earned his living as a professional in the educational establishment before coming to this place, told us what an awful job he had done. I do not agree with him—I think that he probably did a very good job. I am grateful to all those in my constituency who develop training and enterprise.
I am particularly concerned about sixth forms. There is an interesting situation in my constituency. When the grammar school was abolished, a sixth-form college was created in the further education college. It was the only sixth-form college in the Weymouth and Portland area of my constituency. Local schools decided that it would be a good idea to have sixth forms as well, which led to the college complaining about the amount of money being given to schools for sixth forms. The college wanted equality of funding.
The Government announced that they would provide equality of funding and the college rejoiced. Indeed, I congratulated the Government—it just shows how foolish one can be. We now know what that equality of funding means. The Government looked at the cost of sixth forms in further education colleges or other sixth-form colleges and realised that they could get the same provision for the same price through schools. They then froze the amount that schools will receive. The Bill contains mechanisms to abolish sixth forms, so as they become more inadequate because the funding has been frozen, the Government can then decide to abolish them.
When I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Wales about unemployment, he produced the standard line that is no doubt produced by all the spin doctors and the people in Millbank tower. I shall explain why the Bill needed to do something about the failure of the new deal. The hon. Gentleman was probably looking at the figure of 115,000 two years ago for the long-term unemployed. He looks at those claimant figures now and he probably says, "Look, only 45,000 claimants." However, the new deal statistics, which are produced for us constituency by constituency across the entire country, show that in addition to the 45,000 who are classified as long-term unemployed, who are on the gateway, 65,000—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone a long way from the Bill. This is a Third Reading debate and he should return to that subject.

Mr. Bruce: I am sorry to have gone on at some length, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I could just finish the last two figures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has finished what he was saying on that matter. He should deal with Third Reading and then sit down.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I will have to give the Minister a seminar outside this place. Clearly, he has been misinformed by his own statistics.
The Government claim that unemployment is down, and it is, but not on the long-term side. They have said that they are looking to train people and to develop new ways of training. I would not for one moment suggest that, as an economy develops, one can simply set systems in aspic, but with companies crying out for employees and having more vacancies than there are people to fill them, the Bill should have ensured that they would train their own staff. It should have done more to get employers involved in the training councils.
The previous Labour Government had one very successful feature—they introduced the Open university, which is universally acknowledged as a way for people to take responsibility for their own training. The more we can get individuals to do that the better.
Many of us congratulated the Government on the university for industry, which we thought would be another pillar of the Bill. In fact, the UFI has become a UFO: no one has seen it: it has disappeared.
We are looking to see what the Government intend to do. The Bill is a wasted opportunity. It is very long, but, frankly, it was a waste of the Government's time and it was certainly a waste of an opportunity to help people to get the training and skills that they deserve.

Mr. Hayes: I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I wish to return briefly to the city academies. They have been broadly welcomed—Conservative Members certainly welcome them because they build on the fine tradition of the city technology colleges and specialist schools, which are so greatly revered by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
However, the many criticisms of city technology colleges and specialist schools remain unanswered in respect of the city academies. I refer to three matters. The first is the precise status—the nature—of these new schools. I hope that when the Secretary of State sums up he will confirm that, to all intents and purposes, they will be private schools. The second matter is their relationship with other schools within their area. The great criticism of specialist schools and CTCs was the impact that they would have on neighbourhood schools. We want to know, and we have not heard it yet, what obligations city academies will have towards other local schools; what responsibilities they will have for school places and numbers; and about their possible impact on neighbourhood schools in those respects.
Thirdly, precision is required in respect of the funders of the city academies. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) referred to that. However, he did not mention the transfer of assets. When that matter was discussed in Committee, there was a lack of clarity.
I feel that we certainly need from the Secretary of State an assurance about the nature of the transfer of assets and about who those assets will ultimately belong to if they are transferred back to a private body and might become involved in a city academy. I suspect that, without that clarity—although I am sure it will be forthcoming from the Secretary of State—it will be very difficult for Members on either side of the House to vote for Third Reading.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): All the remarks of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) were dealt with in the first two hours of this afternoon when he was not present, and had I known that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) was going to go on at such length at this time of the morning, I would personally have carried 78 people to the polls in 1997.
My friends know that I am totally in favour of timetabling all major Bills, and tonight's antics merely reinforce the argument that that is the most sensible thing that we could do in modernising this place for a 21st-century legislature.
I want to thank hon. Members for being here at this time of the morning and for supporting Third Reading, and to reinforce the very generous words of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who was kind enough, on the last Standing Committee on which he will serve before he retires, to pay tribute to the Ministers who served in Committee, who did a sterling job. I thank them and the Whips for what they did on that Committee.
The judge and jury of the Bill will be those who, in years to come, benefit from it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CRIMINAL LAW

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1993 (Extension of Group A Offences) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(2) (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [22nd June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Religious Broadcasting

Mr. Steve Webb: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to present a petition supported by more than 2,000 of my constituents which relates to the injustice whereby religious broadcasters, such as United Christian Broadcasters, are prevented from bidding for national radio broadcasting licences. Such organisations already broadcast successfully to local communities through local radio and satellite, but, for no good reason, are barred from seeking to broadcast to a wider audience. The petition has been organised by my constituent Mrs. Catherine Van Zoen, to whom I am most grateful.
The petition states:
That current broadcasting legislation is unfair in the way in which it discriminates against religious broadcasters and that religious organisations should be able to compete on a level playing field with secular organisations for the full range of broadcasting licences.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.

To lie upon the Table.

Planning Policy (Chelmsford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mr. Simon Burns: A matter of great concern to my Chelmsford constituents is the amount of housebuilding that is expected to take place during the next 11 years. They fear that whole swathes of greenfield sites—possibly even greenbelt land, if the Liberal Democrats have their way—in Margaretting and Battlesbridge will be concreted over and lost for ever, thus despoiling our environment.
The cause of that concern is the requirement for 69,600 houses to be built in the county of Essex and in Southend-on-Sea between 1996 and 2011. According to figures given by the Deputy Prime Minister, the total could be even higher. My constituents and I want that number to be reduced, as it is unacceptably high.
The current system for housing allocation and the computation of housing need is deeply flawed and unsatisfactory. It is based on a top-down approach—from the Government through county councils to borough and district councils—rather than on the bottom-up approach which would be a more satisfactory and sensible way of dealing with a highly contentious issue throughout the country.
Between 1996 and 2011, Essex and Southend must provide 69,600 new homes. Under the structure plan, they have been allocated throughout the county taking several factors into account—including locally generated needs; the economic potential to support further housing and population increases; and a range of environmental and planning constraints. That will have a bad impact on the town of Chelmsford in my constituency, especially as the land available for housebuilding is, in theory, restricted because the whole of an area in the southern part of the town is green belt—as is the land in Battlesbridge to the south-east of the district council area. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) is extremely concerned about the impact of greenbelt changes on Battlesbridge in his constituency.
Chelmsford has been allocated the largest number of new dwellings in the area—11,950. That is wholly disproportionate and unfair for reasons that I shall outline.
First, building land available in Chelmsford is restricted by the fact that we have a significant amount of greenbelt land in the southern part of the town and in Battlesbridge. Secondly, we do not have the infrastructure to sustain the amount of housing that has already been imposed on us under the Essex county council structure plan.
Thirdly, I understand that 2,250 of the allocated dwellings are intended to meet the needs of people from outside the borough. Apparently that is because Chelmsford
has a strategic role to play in relieving south Essex of housing pressures because of its close proximity to this area.
I bitterly resent that. We are being made a dumping ground to meet the housing requirements of other people in the county. Indeed, I understand that one district authority has been allocated no extra housing.
Instead of trying to offload south Essex housing pressures on to Chelmsford, why not put the 2,250 houses—or some of them—in the Thames gateway?


As infrastructure improvements have already been carried out in that area and more are proposed, it is better suited to meet the Government's wider sustainability goals and objectives. Furthermore, the Thames gateway is nearer to that southern part of the county in which housing pressures are so great that Chelmsford is expected to bear them. I urge the Minister and the Government to ensure that the final guidance reflects the potential of the Thames gateway by ensuring that it takes higher levels of housing provision to stop Chelmsford having to shoulder the burden,
Fourthly, the Government have stated that 60 per cent. of the buildings should be on brownfield sites, and I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments and that policy decision by the Government. However, as I pointed out to the Deputy Prime Minister on 7 March, Chelmsford does not have enough brownfield sites to take 60 per cent. of the new buildings. When account is taken of the homes built since April 1996 and the housing land available at April 1999, the number of extra dwellings needed in Chelmsford before 2011 will be about 7,700. However, most of the brownfield sites have already been used or earmarked for redevelopment.
The Deputy Prime Minister extremely helpfully recognised the problem when, in answer to my question, he said:
The 60 per cent. brownfield site that we have agreed is a national figure and will vary from area to area. In London it could be as much as 80 per cent., but areas outside London—
such as Chelmsford—
do not have that proportion of brownfield site available. That is why we have set a national figure.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 880.]
That answer suggested to me that he intends to use the 60 per cent. figure as a flexible guideline.
If that is a correct assumption of how the Government will implement the policy, I urge them to intervene to implement it as quickly as possible so that we can start reallocating on a national average basis to take into account those areas that have more brownfield sites than others. If we do not take such a course of action sooner rather than later, district councils will have to plan for and implement the housing allocation numbers that they have been given. The flexibility that the Deputy Prime Minister envisaged will pass them by, because it will be too late. I urge speed in trying to put the flexible system into place.
Finally, I come to the question of what Chelmsford borough council seeks to do in allocating the 11,900 houses that it must find room for within its boundaries unless the figures are revised downwards, as I desperately hope that they will be in the not too distant future. I certainly do not envy the council or its planning department. They will have to try to find reasonable sites in which to place that housing. That will be difficult for the reasons that I have mentioned—the lack of brownfield land and the complication caused by the fact that greenbelt land lies within the council's boundaries.
I have been surprised by some of the ways in which the Liberal Democrat-controlled council have come up with recommendations. To be fair, I accept that the recommendations are for consultation and that no decisions have been made. I also accept that it would place the Minister in an invidious and impossible position

if I were to ask her to make any decisions on the suggestions that have been put forward. She is not able to do that. Decisions on greenbelt land may ultimately come before her and her colleagues, so she cannot compromise her position.
In May last year, the whole council came up for re-election. The Liberal Democrats, who formed the majority before the elections, fought them on a pledge to the people of Chelmsford that, if they were re-elected to power, they would increase the southern band of the green belt in Chelmsford the whole way round the limits of the town in order to seek to prevent housebuilding in our suburbs. I could quite happily have signed up to and supported that policy, which is the one that the Liberal Democrats fought the election on.
The Conservative party did significantly well by noticeably increasing its number of borough councillors and the Liberal Democrats lost overall control of the council. However, within four months of the election, they suddenly announced to the people of Chelmsford, out of the blue, that it was not possible to implement such a policy. It surprised me that they could not find that out before the election, but they did not.
It could be assumed from that that the Liberal Democrats are deeply committed to the green belt, but their consultation document that has gone out for the people of Chelmsford to respond to—it deals with where the housing should go—refers to the village of Margaretting, to the amazement of my constituents, and to the considerable anger of most of them. Margaretting, which is to the south of Chelmsford, has no transport infrastructure worth talking about except that the A12 rather noisily passes by it. It has no education infrastructure apart from a very good primary school and, with a population of about 800, it has very few houses. It is entirely within greenbelt land. However, the preferred option of the Liberal Democrats is to have 2,500 houses placed in the village.
The villagers of Margaretting are outraged, as is anyone in Chelmsford who cares for our environment. If the borough council, in the light of its consultation, is to disregard the representations that it receives and press forward with the proposal, I can assure the Minister that I will be knocking on her door with many of my constituents to try to ensure that the Government do not relax the green belt in that part of Chelmsford.
There is a problem in the north-east of the town. The proposals that have gone out for consultation contain the idea that north of the Boreham interchange there will be an additional 1,000 dwellings. In the village of Boreham, or on the outskirts, between 1,500 and 2,100 dwellings could be placed.
Boreham is a relatively small village and local community. To impose suddenly such a significant amount of housing upon it would destroy the nature and character of the village. With the possibility of 1,000 houses north of the Boreham interchange, the village—it is about three or four miles from the outskirts of Chelmsford—could become a suburb of the town, which is not acceptable.
These examples demonstrate the difficulties caused by placing a significant amount of housing in a relatively small geographical area. The county council should certainly reconsider the way in which it has carved up the county, giving Chelmsford the largest proportion of


additional houses when that is unwarranted, unrealistic and unsustainable. The preferred option of Margaretting in the borough council's consultation document is unacceptable. I do not accept that what it is planning for Boreham and other parts of the borough is the most sensible way of proceeding.
I would hope that, even at this stage, we could see a reduction in the number of houses that the county is expected to have built between now and the year 2011. We do not want our environment to be destroyed by the bulldozer, the brick and concrete. We want our villages to remain villages and our green belt to remain green belt. We want our open spaces and countryside to be just that, rather than a mass of urban sprawl.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on obtaining the debate on an issue that is of enormous concern both to his and my constituents in Chelmsford. I thank him for allowing me to make a brief contribution to his debate.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that he has advanced so powerfully and cogently. I merely say that I strongly endorse everything that he has said. He has spelled out some of the history of the proposal for considerable extra development in Essex, especially in Chelmsford. Suffice it for me to add that the original target contained in the Serplan—south-east regional planning committee—recommendation that Essex should take almost an extra 4,200 houses every year was regarded by many people in the county as far too high, and the new target of 5,420 new houses each year, which the county has been given as a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's actions, is impossible to achieve. I do not believe that the county infrastructure is capable of sustaining such a level of development, so I strongly urge Ministers to think again.
My hon. Friend and I are principally concerned about the extra housing that is to be built in and around Chelmsford—the borough council has been told that it is required to find space for 7,700 new properties. The three preferred locations identified in the plan lie outside my constituency, but several of the others mentioned lie in my constituency—one in Galleywood, one in Great Baddow and one just north of Sandon—and all have substantial drawbacks, as is made clear in the borough council's document. However, my real concern is less about the specific locations under discussion within the borough of Chelmsford than about the principle involved, because, whatever the location, so much extra housing will place intolerable strain on our local infrastructure.
Our area has already had a huge amount of development in recent years. As a result, schools are at capacity: two secondary schools in my constituency are full and are turning away parents who want to send their children there. Waiting lists for hospitals in north Essex are lengthening. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, north Essex has the worst waiting times in the whole country, and those times have lengthened dramatically in the past three years.
The road system is already clogged, with the A12—the main route between Chelmsford and London—often at a standstill. The water supply is under tremendous strain; although, given the rainfall of the past few weeks, it might

not be immediately apparent, Essex has been one of the driest counties—if not the driest county—in England, and the Essex and Suffolk water company is having considerable difficulty meeting existing demand. In addition, it is already proving difficult to find sufficient space to dispose of the waste generated in the county. None of those problems have apparently been considered by those who have made the proposal, yet all will be made far worse if the proposal goes ahead.
My message to the Minister is: think again. Such a large amount of housing will cause havoc in the county, especially in the borough of Chelmsford. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks and urge the Minister to look at the matter afresh.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate, in which he has expressed concern about the additional housing that Chelmsford will have to accommodate in the next few years.
For our part, the Government are keen to ensure that, in acting to meet the need for housing, the local planning authority adheres to our policies on housing provision. However, it is important to remember that the planning system is designed so that once the overall scale and distribution has been determined through regional planning guidance and the county structure plan—about which both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) are concerned—decisions on the precise location of development have to be taken locally. I shall speak later about the procedure governing that decision, but I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen would agree that it must be for the people of Chelmsford to make their views known and for Chelmsford borough council to take account of those views and justify its proposals through the local plan process. I shall say a little more later about the policies that must be observed. I hope that that will be helpful.
On the main point made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, I do not accept that a top-down process is involved in overall allocations through RPG, and there is a requirement for distribution decisions to be taken at local level.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the council has embarked on a review of the current borough local plan, which expires next year. The new plan will need to include policies and proposals for accommodating the significant amount of new development required in the borough up to 2011, as he said. In preparing the new plan, the council must ensure that it conforms with the replacement structure plan which is simultaneously being prepared by the county council and Southend-on-Sea borough council.
Clearly, the replacement structure plan has major land use implications for the borough, particularly in relation to new housing and employment use. It was the subject of an examination in public last summer and, as a result of that process, Chelmsford borough's share of the overall amount of housing judged to be needed will be 11,650, which is 300 fewer than the number identified by the panel. I am informed that 9,200 of those houses are


required to meet locally determined need. The hon. Gentleman implicitly acknowledged that by saying that the remaining 2,450 houses were in addition to locally determined need.
Chelmsford borough council must now decide, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, where in the borough those 11,650 new dwellings should be located. The council must reach that decision in conjunction with local people, taking into account local views and national policy.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the 2,450 houses, the county as a whole, and perhaps Chelmsford as well, needs key workers from outside. Therefore, the argument that Chelmsford should meet only its locally determined need cannot necessarily be sustained.
I return to the point about policy, on which I hope to be helpful. We will expect Chelmsford borough council, in deciding where the new dwellings should be built, to have regard to the policies on the location of new housing and the form of residential development that are included in the emerging replacement structure plan. Those policies must in turn reflect PPG3, about which there has recently been much discussion in the House.
A particular requirement of PPG3 is that a sequential approach be adopted to the identification of housing sites, so as to deliver brownfield land for development before greenfield sites. That means that the council must seek to maximise the use of brownfield sites, previously occupied buildings, and so on. I note the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Deputy Prime Minister's response to him, which I believe he has interpreted correctly, so it may provide some comfort.
I realise that Chelmsford probably cannot meet the target of 60 per cent. development on brownfield sites. In cases where not all development in urban areas can take place on brownfield or previously developed sites, as PPG3 requires, the Government look to local planning authorities to find the most sustainable option.
There are priorities governing the way in which the sequential approach should be applied. The most sustainable option is likely to be planned extensions or peripheral development on the edge of existing large urban areas, especially where it is possible to utilise existing physical and social infrastructure, good access to public transport, shops, jobs, leisure facilities, and so on.
That is the first priority. The policy on the sequential approach in the replacement plan also states that where new housing cannot be provided within or on the periphery of large urban areas it should be provided in the form of expanded settlements. These should be large enough to provide a range of employment, shopping, educational and other community facilities, with a capability for providing a choice of means of transport.
The plan also allows for small-scale housing to be provided in small towns and villages, in line with policy, on a scale sufficient to meet local needs. So in terms of

overall housing provision only a limited amount of housing can normally be expected to be accommodated in expanding villages, although the Government are concerned that there should be adequate housing provision in rural areas to meet the needs of local people, and we expect Chelmsford borough council to make sufficient land available either within or adjoining villages to enable local requirements to be met.
There is clearly set out in policy a priority order of application of the sequential approach. Indeed, the document produced by the council acknowledges that sequence of priorities on page 6, although, for reasons that it argues, its proposals do not necessarily conform to it at this stage. But the council may have a valid argument about that, and I am in no way making any judgment.
In recent months, Chelmsford borough council has been consulting residents about the land use planning issues that need to be covered in its local plan. In particular, the council has published a report containing a number of options and stating a preference. The important point to recognise is that, in taking that process forward and in going through the various stages of consultation, the council will be required to demonstrate the reasons for its preferences, and particularly how far it has been able to adopt the sequential approach, as I have outlined it and as policy in terms of the priority stages of that approach would require.
The onus is on the council to justify its proposed housing policies through the local plan process. The council has made it clear, as it is required to, that, at this stage, it is only seeking comments on the possible choices put forward, and not all the locations suggested might be developed.
The next stage is for the council to place on deposit a draft version of the new plan, which will be open to formal objection. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when that happens, the Secretary of State will look closely at the extent to which the proposals are in conformity with all our national planning policies, including those on housing.
After a second draft deposit stage, about four months later, outstanding objections to the plan will be considered before an independent inspector at a local public inquiry, probably late next year or early the year after. It is at the inquiry, in particular, that the merits of the council's proposals will be thoroughly examined and the sustainability of the options for locating new housing, tested against the Government's policies in PPG3, will be examined alongside the views of objectors.
I hope that I have clarified the detail of the policy for the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will be assisting his constituents to make their views known at the appropriate time, and I assure him that the Secretary of State will also give the matter careful consideration, if and when it comes to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.